Fucking monomaniac! Rummy should resign!

[ElvisL1ves]

Whether the sources are identifed or not (and they can’t be), the overall picture is that the scapegoats are being set up, the asses are looking for cover, and the knives are being aimed at the backs. That doesn’t happen in a successful operation among the people conducting it.

[december]

*Originally posted by nogginhead *
**Do you believe he disagreed with Gen. Franks? **

The two people involved, Rumsfeld and Franks, have denied it, I believe. Some anonymous sources say it happened. I just don’t know.

[Blalron]

Who to believe? Fox or Reuters? Such a difficult decision! I mean, Fox is SO impartial and unbiased :rolleyes:

[Blalron]

oops, on second glance they are simply printing an Associated Press article. I withdraw my sarcastic rolleyes.

[nogginhead]

Well, now. Be fair.

Reuters is reporting on a story in the New Yorker. By Seymour Hersh, not known as a fan. So it may well be biased as well.

[nogginhead]

*Originally posted by december *
**The two people involved, Rumsfeld and Franks, have denied it, I believe. Some anonymous sources say it happened. I just don’t know. **

I believe Rumsfeld and Franks might have very good reasons to deny it, even if it happened. Franks, for instance, could have a direct order from Rumsfeld to lie to the press. And Rumsfeld would have very good reasons to give that order. I’ll wait 'til Franks writes his autobiography.

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by LogicinMotion *
**Hmm. Everything in the first article, is an ‘unidentified source’

As for General Franks, I would not expect him to admit that Rumsfeld had denied more troops EVEN IF it were true. And I would expect him to deny it regardless.

**

Very true.

[Barbarian]

Oh, here’s another example that generals don’t always know what they’re doing. Pentagon rigged war games after the US side lost

[elf6c]

On the unindentified sources issue:

You too would speak off the record if it meant the end of your career. The fact that they are willing to talk at all, is to me a serious warning sign of trouble.

The issue for me is that Rumsfeld and the other civilians in the Bush administration without any military experience were claiming that they would leave the military alone. If these accusations are true, then Rumsfeld is lying.

While military service itself is not a prerequisite for being a good Sec of Def, staying the fuck out of the way of the people who know what they are doing is. Given these stories (if true) and Rumsfled’s thirst for the media, I am worried we could have another McNamera on our hands.

However, the administration is now denying the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/30/sprj.irq.rumsfeld/index.html

Rumsfeld said the plan was developed by Gen. Tommy Franks – the chief of the U.S. Central Command – in conjunction with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“I would be delighted to take credit for it. It’s a good plan. It’s a creative and an innovative plan, and it’s going to work,” he said, adding that “it’s a little early for postmortems.”

Rumsfeld’s remarks were in response to an article in the New Yorker magazine and other media reports that he had rejected requests from Franks and the Pentagon for more troops and hardware before starting a ground war against Iraq.

Personally I would rather have Colin Powell in his position, but hopefully this story will help reinforce the negative aspects of “dabbling” to those tempted to do so in the Bush administration.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
**The issue for me is that Rumsfeld and the other civilians in the Bush administration without any military experience were claiming that they would leave the military alone. If these accusations are true, then Rumsfeld is lying. **

Well, Rumsfeld himself does have military experience. He was an Air Force officer from 1954-1957, and a reservist after that. I also don’t remember him promising to leave the military alone. In fact, I seem to remember some pretty well publicized fights he had with the Pentagon over weapons systems, accounting changes and other administrative things.

And Bryan Elkers, Rumsfeld does have 3 kids, so apparently, he was a fucker at one time.

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by Captain Amazing *
**Well, Rumsfeld himself does have military experience. He was an Air Force officer from 1954-1957, and a reservist after that. I also don’t remember him promising to leave the military alone. In fact, I seem to remember some pretty well publicized fights he had with the Pentagon over weapons systems, accounting changes and other administrative things.

And Bryan Elkers, Rumsfeld does have 3 kids, so apparently, he was a fucker at one time. **

Good point, but it is clear that he had no wartime experience. Still 3 years is better then none. That being said don’t trust him much.

And thanks for the image of Rummy get jiggy at least 3 times. Uggh! Need a brain wash after that one.

[5_time_champ]

Joe Galloway chief war correspondent for Knight-Ridder newspapers was interviewed on NPR’s Fresh Air last Wednesday Mar 26. Galloway reported essentially the same thing. The scuttlebutt is that Rumsfeld was hoodwinked by the Air Force, and was trying to do the war with substantially fewer ground troops than the generals wanted.

Let me reiterate, the Gen. Franks and the generals are not going to publicly disagree with the President and Defense Secretary.

Upon preview I see that Rumsfeld is a former Air Force, it is good to note that not everyone advocating the war in the Bush Administration is a chickenhawk.

[ElvisL1ves]

Mickey Kaus, not normally all that persuasive, has a theory about Rumsfeld’s use of force:

If “regime change” in Iraq were the only goal, there’d be no reason not to provide plenty of soldiers to do the job, with an ample margin of safety. But regime change in Iraq isn’t the only goal. Rather, neocons in the Bush administration see the Iraq campaign as the opening move in a series of potential power plays that might involve at least credibly threatening military action against Syria, North Korea, Iran, and maybe even Saudi Arabia. The first two threats have already, in fact, been issued (and I’m not saying there aren’t good reasons to want to be able to intimidate some of these countries – e.g. North Korea – even while fighting an Iraq-sized war).

If we can take Iraq only with a huge, heavy force --or if the Powell Doctrine that we should use overwhelming force even if we don’t need it still applies – well, we can’t very credibly claim that we can take on (or take over) all these other countries at the same time, or even in rapid succession, can we? But if we can topple a heavily-defended government in Iraq with a light, quick non-Powellesque force – using but a small portion of our strength – then taking on multiple targets suddenly becomes a real possibility, and a real threat to regimes in Tehran, Damascus, and Pyongyang.

That’s why the slowdown in Iraq (and the coming furor over “troop dilution”) is a bigger blow to the neocons than the actual military situation on the ground, which doesn’t seem that bad, might indicate. We aren’t very likely to ‘lose’ the Iraq war. But if it becomes a big, convulsive, multi-month slog – stopping the nation’s economy in the process – we’re not likely to have much stomach for the next war.

Kaus links to Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian:

Why would a hawk like Rumsfeld prefer less to more? My Washington source offers an astonishing explanation: “So they can do it again.” The logic is simple. Rumsfeld and co know that amassing an army of quarter of a million is a once-a-decade affair: 1991 and 2003. But if they can prove that victory is possible with a lighter, more nimble force, assembled rapidly - then why not repeat the trick? **“This is just the beginning,” an administration official told the New York Times this week. “I would not rule out the same sequence of events for Iran and North Korea as for Iraq.” **

Bolding added.

I think that gives Rumsfeld and the Imperium Americanum neocons too much credit, though - simple crashing ahead and bungling are adequate explanations.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

nogginhead, you are just dead wrong. Rumsfeld is a “motherfucking megalomaniac.” “Fucking monomaniac” is too limiting to fully explain the entirety of the impairments that the man suffers from. This idea that he would be at odds with large segments of the military should not come as a shock. Such issues were widely reported before 9/11, so much so that Slate.com had a “Rummy Death Watch,” predicting he would be booted before long.

I have to quote Judge Smails in this circumstance: “The man’s a menace.”

[Boyo_Jim]

I don’t think ANY of you are reading this right.

The first story NEVER says Tommy Franks asked for and was denied more troops. It says Pentagon planners requests were denied. Tommy Franks is and was at CentCom, not the Pentagon.

The actual claim about Franks is that he advised the war be delayed until access through Turkey for American troops was arranged. Franks never denied this, but then again it appears he was not asked about it.

So, why doesn’t everyone take a breath, and rethink your positions.

Carry on.

[elf6c]

Before we let Rumsfled off the hook, more evidence against him:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&ncid=68&e=1&u=/nyt/20030401/ts_nyt/rumsfeld_s_design_for_war_criticized_on_the_battlefield

Long-simmering tensions between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army commanders have erupted in a series of complaints from officers on the Iraqi battlefield that the Pentagon (news - web sites) has not sent enough troops to wage the war as they want to fight it.

Here today, raw nerves were obvious as officers compared Mr. Rumsfeld to Robert S. McNamara, an architect of the Vietnam War who failed to grasp the political and military realities of Vietnam.
One colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region. “He wanted to fight this war on the cheap,” the colonel said. “He got what he wanted.”
The angry remarks from the battlefield opened with comments made last Thursday and widely publicized Friday by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the V Corps commander, who said the military faced the likelihood of a longer war than many strategists had anticipated.

Somethings rotten in Denmark, me thinks. The Bush Administrations attempt to stifle the story looks to have failed. If this is true, then Rummy needs to go.

Check out the article and decide for yourself.

[mack]

Here’s a link to the Seymour Hersch article:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1