***Rumsfield Stepping Down***

[georgesbluegirl]

(georgesbluegirl @ Nov 8 2006, 03:16 PM) *

rumsfeld should have stepped down after abu ghraib.

it's about time.

This coming from a hypocrite who finds nothing wrong with Islam, or quoting pagan teachers (actually false christs) in their signature.

Way to go.

Awesome job of attacking me instead of arguing the issue.

Way to go.

By the way, I don't believe I ever said there was "nothing wrong with Islam."

[David H.]

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.

I think that could be a little naive with no offense intended. It's just that I believe Rumsfeld set the atmosphere that allowed Abu Graib to happen, and I think he knew that he was doing that. I don't think he knew what specifically was happening there, but I think he made it clear, if only by implication, that he would be glad if they got a little rough an ugly. There are ways that people have of retaining "plausible deniabilty" while tipping their hat to let others know what they would "like" to see done.

--David

[georgesbluegirl]

Yeah, I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that he actually promoted torture, but I agree that a tone was set - and, honestly, continues to be set as long as we refuse to refute torture. I mean, Cheney said he supported waterboarding, didn't he? (Correct me if I'm wrong, please.) The bottom line is that A.G. happened under Rumsfeld's watch, and that, overall, the military didn't like him. Which is pretty key when you're the secretary of defense. So yeah, I'm glad to see him gone.

[David H.]

Your claim that the "military" has very little respect for him is wrong. He has the respect of most of the military, in fact.

That's debatable. Just one day before the election major military newspapers came out with op eds stating the Rumsfeld needed to be removed. According to what I read, there is only one other time in history (not sure what time) when these same publication asked for the removal of a Secretary of Defense. That shows a pretty high level of disastisfaction. But I think you are also a little too easily dismissive of the many generals who have asked for Rumsfeld's removal. That, too, is not typical. It happens, but not in such numbers. You sweep it too easily under the carpet as being a few disgruntled generals. Maybe those generals were very smart generals who were rightfully disgruntled because they stood against Rumsfelds lame ideas and he went his own way. No one seems too impressed with how Rumsfeld's way is working out. So, maybe it was right of those generals to speak out in favor of superior ideas. They're not just unhappy employees.

There will always be shortfall in supply and in strategy, BUT America is a strong country that has a right to expect high-quality performance. Rumsfeld is well paid for what he does (maybe not by his standards, but by most of ours); so, we have a right to expect the highest level of performance. Even Colin Powel locked horns often with Rumsfeld, and I think the "Powel Doctrine" was right.

The war, however, was wrong. Wrong time and wrong place to be fighting the war on terror. Afghanistan was the right time and right place, and, had we put all the resources we've dumped into Iraq into Afghanistan instead, Afghanistan would be a smashing success. We should have spent the money we spent on war in Iraq, claiming the peace in Afghanistan by building up a beautiful country at amazing speed. But the war there drags on, too. And don't even get me started about the shear stupidity of the choice in Tora Bora to let the Afghan warlords take out bin Laden.

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

That is right. We could not afford an unnecessary war while fighting a very necessary (and morally legitimate one) in Afghanistan. We had plenty of money to do Afghanistan well.

--David

[David H.]

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

But did we really?

I agree with your statements about all the wrongs Saddam did, Ted. But, if those were the reasons for war, then those are the reasons the president should have given; but he didn't. His reasons for war were very clearly declared before the entire world -- WMD and Al Qaeda ties with Saddam to the war on terror. So, why didn't he rest on those other reasons?

Because he knew that neither Congress nor the majority of the people nor the world would accept a war for those reasons. It would have been far more respectable if the president had made his case for war on the reasons you give and, if people wouldn't go for it, then no war. But you CANNOT let a president get away with raising false pretenses as the basis for a war. Even the president called it a pre-emptive war, so clearly he was not relying on those past reasons. That would have made it a retaliatory war.

I agree, too, that the Gulf War never ended in the first place. I knew it wouldn't because GB1 chose to leave the cancer in place.

What GB2 should have done to correct the problem is made a declaration that the United States would "return to conflict" with Saddam if the truce was not upheld AND lay out specifically what acts were happening that were against the truce. It should have told the world that it would go to war solely to enforce the truce and then given a time limit with statement during that time, showing where the truce was still being broken and letting the world know that each break was a step to war. THEN CONGRESS WOULD HAVE TO VOTE WHETHER TO GO TO WAR ON THAT BASIS. But they were asked to vote for war on false pretenses. There decision might have been different if they were given different reasons. And Saddam's actions might have been different if we didn't keep insisting false things, which he knew were false. Maybe. That's the problem with false reasons. It leaves a lot of maybe about what would have happened if the truth had been used as our basis.

[David H.]

Yeah, I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that he actually promoted torture, but I agree that a tone was set - and, honestly, continues to be set as long as we refuse to refute torture. I mean, Cheney said he supported waterboarding, didn't he? (Correct me if I'm wrong, please.) The bottom line is that A.G. happened under Rumsfeld's watch, and that, overall, the military didn't like him. Which is pretty key when you're the secretary of defense. So yeah, I'm glad to see him gone.

That is a perfect example. Cheney, as I recall, did not exactly say, "We're going to do waterboarding." He was asked if he would be against it, and he said something to the effect of "I wouldn't mind seeing waterboarding used against these guys." That gives him "plausible deniablity" in his public statements. He has just tipped his hat the military and said "waterboard away, Guys (and Gals)." But, if it happens and the public outrage comes, he'll say, "I didn't ask for waterboarding. I was answering a question about my personal likes and dislikes, and I said that I PERSONALLY don't have any objection to it. But I DID NOT put out an order for water boarding." Rumsfeld works the same way on these shady areas. It's very sly. They can actually give a PUBLIC order to do waterboarding by tipping their hat without actually giving any official order at all. To the military, it means, if you do this and don't get caught, you won't hear anything about it from us; but it's your job to not get caught.

--David

[ted]

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.

I think that could be a little naive with no offense intended. It's just that I believe Rumsfeld set the atmosphere that allowed Abu Graib to happen, and I think he knew that he was doing that. I don't think he knew what specifically was happening there, but I think he made it clear, if only by implication, that he would be glad if they got a little rough an ugly. There are ways that people have of retaining "plausible deniabilty" while tipping their hat to let others know what they would "like" to see done.

--David

I agree with this, somewhat.

Although the rush was on for information, it's doesn't apply in this one instance of Abu Graib.

For the most part, its was a few lower ranking kids getting their kicks with the prisoners. I think they were told by CIA paople to soften them up a little before thay went in and "interviewed" the prisoners the next day.

This was a case on a few individuals playing around and it went too far. They thought they had the protection of others to do what they did, but we all saw just where that protection went when everything was exposed.

As usual, the lower ranking people got the short end of the stick.

Rumsfeld being responsible for the atmosphere of the prison is debatable, based on the fact that the CIA, another cabinet seat altogether, had a big role in the running of the prison, as well.

I think it's a case where a few kids went to far and had the slim blessings to do so by their CIA "superiors", rather than something created by Sec Rumsfeld.

[David H.]

Saddams WMD is more than a few rusty warheads

http://www.nysun.com/article/24480

Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says

By IRA STOLL

Staff Reporter of the Sun

December 15, 2005

Saddam Hussein moved his chemical weapons to Syria six weeks before the war started, Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom says.

The assertion comes as President Bush said yesterday that much of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was incorrect.

The Israeli officer, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, asserted that Saddam spirited his chemical weapons out of the country on the eve of the war. "He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," General Yaalon told The New York Sun over dinner in New York on Tuesday night. "No one went to Syria to find it."

And you are way underestimating Saddam's ties with AlQaeida and terror groups at the time. I will try to find reliable articles to confirm my assertions, but at this late date, it may not be possible, but I distinctly remember reading them.

My Web Blog

Look, I use the term "a few rusty warheads" figuratively but faithful to the truth. EVEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION did not consider the find of WMD to be significant. They very obviously avoided attributing much significance to it because they knew that, from a military standpoint, they would appear to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything they could find to legitimize their effort.

There is no proof at all that Saddam moved his WMD to Syria. That has always been unverified speculation. BUT, if it were true, Bush would be all the more to blame for observing it happen (to the point that we can claim it did happen) while doing nothing to stop it immediately. Why would he be all the more to blame? BECAUSE Bush said that if we didn't go to war in Iraq, those weapons would proliferate into the hands of others. Then it turns out that his threat to go to war with Saddam caused exactly that to happen. It would mean that Bush's loud threats of war were like water on a gasoline fire, causing Saddam to quickly disperse his weapons into the hands of others ... and Bush let it happen! Remember, the speculation was happening before the war; so, if I knew about, then George Bush has no excuse not to have known about it. So, let's hope that speculation is wrong, or Bush has a lot more to answer for.

The article you read about Al Qaeda ties were also speculation, at the time, based on incomplete evidence. You will notice that the president's own administration has accepted the fact that there are no Al Qaeda ties. They are remarkably quiet when people accuse them of being wrong on those two matters WMD and Al Qaeda ties. They know the "evidence" is too pathetic to even try to stand on. It was fine for speculation, but not as proof of anything.

There is a LOT to be answered for here, and now that's going to happen.

[ted]

That's debatable. Just one day before the election major military newspapers came out with op eds stating the Rumsfeld needed to be removed. According to what I read, there is only one other time in history (not sure what time) when these same publication asked for the removal of a Secretary of Defense.

That's the opinion of the person who wrote the editorial, and cannot be used to justify statements that seem to impress the notion that most of the military wanted him to go.

Many high level leaders have come out show their displeasure with Rumsfeld, though, and they can't be shrugged off with simply saying that it doesn't mean anything. That's not a point I was trying to convey.

There was a bit of discontent, that much is true. I think there always will be a bit of discontent between military leaders and their civilian bosses.

Just ask Gene MacArthur.

It's nothing new.

Give "Joe" a war, and we'll find something to complain about. This war is no different than any other in that regard.

There will always be shortfall in supply and in strategy, BUT America is a strong country that has a right to expect high-quality performance. Rumsfeld is well paid for what he does (maybe not by his standards, but by most of ours); so, we have a right to expect the highest level of performance. Even Colin Powel locked horns often with Rumsfeld, and I think the "Powel Doctrine" was right.

We, in fact, did give a high quality performance. The problem was that Rumsfeld was not the right guy for the security and rebuilding phases of the battle agains Iraq.

I'm not exactly what the "Powell Doctrine" was, or is. When he didn't get his way, he bolted, so I never quite could understand just what he wanted.

Perhaps he had some great ideas and Bush took Rumsfeld's side instead?

The war, however, was wrong. Wrong time and wrong place to be fighting the war on terror. Afghanistan was the right time and right place, and, had we put all the resources we've dumped into Iraq into Afghanistan instead, Afghanistan would be a smashing success. We should have spent the money we spent on war in Iraq, claiming the peace in Afghanistan by building up a beautiful country at amazing speed. But the war there drags on, too. And don't even get me started about the shear stupidity of the choice in Tora Bora to let the Afghan warlords take out bin Laden.

Again, I agree somewhat with this.

I think that we were going to have to deal with Iraq eventually, and Bush figured he's do it then while he was still riding the wave of emotion caused by 9/11.

In that regard, I think we made a mistake in tackling Iraq before we cleaned out Afghanistan completely.

I also think that we should have dealt with Iran before we went into Iraq. We should have known that Iran would capitalize in Iraq once we took Saddam out. The country has been under a heavy thumb for too long with Saddam in charge and it was ripe for Iran to exploit it. It's very similar to the former Yugoslavia after the Soviet Union collapsed. Suddenly, 3-4 strong ethnic and political groups were left to claim their former strength without the empire to hold them down.

Plus, I think Iran posed a greater threat to global security at the time than Iraq did.

I could be wrong, though.

Either way, I don't see where we could avoid an ultimate showdown with Iraq, eventually. Bush simply picked it to be next, instead of waiting until later.

Maybe he figured it would be that big of a deal? He was wrong on that count, but still, it needed to be done.

I agree with your statements about all the wrongs Saddam did, Ted. But, if those were the reasons for war, then those are the reasons the president should have given; but he didn't. His reasons for war were very clearly declared before the entire world -- WMD and Al Qaeda ties with Saddam to the war on terror. So, why didn't he rest on those other reasons?

Because he knew that neither Congress nor the majority of the people nor the world would accept a war for those reasons. It would have been far more respectable if the president had made his case for war on the reasons you give and, if people wouldn't go for it, then no war. But you CANNOT let a president get away with raising false pretenses as the basis for a war. Even the president called it a pre-emptive war, so clearly he was not relying on those past reasons. That would have made it a retaliatory war.

He did, in fact, give those very reason for going in to Iraq during his lead-up speeches to Congress and to the UN. What the people keyed in on, though, was the claims of WMD's.

He should have done a better job of selling it from the standpoint of UN mandate violations, though. He tried, but the world keyed in on the WMD parts of the speeches and now it looks as if that's all he said in the matter.

It's simply not true.

He stated many times over that Saddam was violating many of the UN resolutions and should be held accountable for his actions.

Still, though, the world wants to keep it's sights on the WMD comments and nothing else. Even then, they only show what Bush said about the claims, and not what John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and all the rest of them were saying about the deal- which was exactly the same thing!

They are not held accountable for what they said- only Bush is.

Sorry, but I don't fall for the old "Well, Bush lied to us and that's why we agreed with him" banter. It just doesn't wash. They had access to the same stuff Bush did at the time. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Clinton had an even better idea of what was going on, as he was only recently retired from the office.

When they saw that they had a chance to exploit the matter and make Bush look stupid, they switched gears. They were all on the same page until they knew we were actually going to follow through with what should have been done years before that time in history.

I think history will show that Bush was right to go in, I just wish he would have waite a little longer so we could finish in Afghanistan and gave us a rest first.

Thanks,

t.

[David H.]

I'm not exactly what the "Powell Doctrine" was, or is. When he didn't get his way, he bolted, so I never quite could understand just what he wanted.

I think that is a very unfair characterization. The "Powell Doctrine" said that the U.S. should always apply overwhelming force in a military situation. Rumsfeld was for applying only as much force as precisely necessary. The problem, which Powell knew but a CEO didn't, is that military operation are not that predictable and quatifiable that you can know what is necessary. The other part of his doctrine is that overwhelming force creates terror and makes the enemy fold faster, thus actually sparing more lives and more expense because it's over more quickly. Rumsfeld STAUNCHLY opposed that approach, and it is clear that we have not had enough soldiers present to do the job quickly. We had enough to carry out the intitial attack, but nowhere near enough to do all the ground clean-up that is necessary to police the situation and create peace and stability. That's why this just drizzles on forever.

The unfair part of your statement is that Powell cut and run. He certainly did not. He didn't criticize Rumsfeld publically, and he still has not criticized Rumsfeld because the war continues and because he is not a critical person. He's more about focusing on the job at hand than critiquing the past. He staid with the president until the president's term ended and then made a graceful exit because he disagreed with how things were going, but he didn't say he disagreed publically. That's what others said who were party to meetings where Powell and Rumsfeld were both present. It was obvious the president was not listening to Powell, and he could not with integrity continue to put himself behind a president who wanted to do things a much different way. I think that is highly respectable.

He after all, was serving voluntarily and his advice was consistently being ignored.

I agree with a lot of the rest of what you have to say, but Iraq is the wrong war. Nevertheless, we are there and we MUST win now because the alternative is worse. So, our troops can serve with the full confidence that they are doing the right thing at this point, even if it is the wrong war because that's history. Now the peace has to be won, and that's a tougher thing to accomplish.

He did, in fact, give those very reason for going in to Iraq during his lead-up speeches to Congress and to the UN. What the people keyed in on, though, was the claims of WMD's. He should have done a better job of selling it from the standpoint of UN mandate violations

Bush tested the waters with a number of claims. He recognized that Congress would not support a war based on the legitimate claims that Saddam was not honoring the truce from the first war; so he started talking about WMD and Al Qaeda. The WMD were scarcely mentioned at first, but it became clear that the scare of chemical weapons was what had cache with the public; so he focused on those claims. Only problem was those were the claims with the least amount of evidence. Saddam locking his radar onto our plane was clear. WMD were always more speculative. In the final lead-up to the war, WMD and the war on terror became Bush's mantra for the war -- not the public's. He was the one controlling the message and choosing to repeat the parts that found cache with the public and he repeated them over and over and over. No one made him focus on that public interest. He CHOSE to.

The bottom line is he moved to things that had very poor substantiation because they were the things that could sell the war he WANTED to have, and he was WRONG. No moral people can sit back and let their president start wars on false pretenses. Maybe the war would have eventually been inevitable. In that case, it was someone else's war to fight in a future time. Wrong time. Wrong Place. Accountability.

I think Bush has done this nation diplomatic harm from which it will take decades to cover. Had he staid in Afghanistan, the entire world would have been behind us, and the entire nation would have been behind him. And when all the money spent in Iraq was spent, instead, in Afghanistan, the shining example created would have ended most Arab delusions that the U.S. only cares about war. What could have been created with that money would shine so brightly that some nations would practically beg for the U.S. to attack their dictators.

It was an incredible loss of opportunity by arrogantly overplaying his hand at a time when the ENTIRE world was behind us because of 9/11. Even our worst enemies were silent about our going into Afghanistan because the connection between that country and 9/11 was CRYSTAL CLEAR.

It was a great opportunity squandered. Then Iraq could have been dealt with by some future president AFTER it clearly began to overplay its hand as despots always do in the end.

I'm not saying any of this in hindsight. I said it from the moment we went into Iraq. I've written it many times since, and I continue to believe history is already showing it to be true.

--David