Rumsfeld's war (1 Viewer)

[disneydude]

AP -
WASHINGTON - President Bush, brushing aside an intensifying clamor among retired military commanders for Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation, said Friday his defense secretary enjoys his full support and that Rumsfeld's leadership of the Pentagon was "exactly what is needed at this critical period." Bush apparently issued his statement to put to rest increasing calls for the secretary to go because of criticism that he has mishandled the Iraq war and made other mistakes.


Is anyone surprized? Of course Bush isn't going to listen to credible military leaders because this has never been about the US Military. This is Rumsfeld's war. He had been planning it for decades before 911. As we all know (or should know) 911 was simply the ploy to justify the attack.

 

[Gibberish]

This is all being discussed on a thread into it's 7th or 8th page just so you are aware.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/todays-news/10201-another-general-joins-ranks-opposing-rumsfeld.html

 

[disneydude]

^
Yes I was aware of that thread. However, by page 2 the postings had gotten so far away from the topic. Also, my focus here is not so much on the Military calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, but rather Why Bush continues to stand by him.
I, as well as others, have said for a long long time that Bush is just a figurehead. Bush does not have the intelligence to lead a classroom of 7 year olds, let alone a country. This war has never been about Bush calling the shots. It is and always has been Rumsfeld's war.

When a terrorist-hijacked plane plows into the Pentagon on the morning of Sept. 11, Secretary Rumsfeld is sitting inside in a meeting. Immediately after evacuating the building, he begins to help rescue those injured. "He runs toward it," says former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre. "It is, again, his instinct. That's what he does. He runs in to a problem. He doesn't run from a problem." "That certainly earns him a big gold star, I think, in terms of the uniformed military; personal courage counts for a lot," says Andrew Krepinevich.

Afterward, Rumsfeld heads back inside the Pentagon to the National Military Command Center, where he remains in contact with the president and vice president throughout the day. Rumsfeld and Cheney argue that the U.S. will have to retaliate -- not just against bin Laden, but against countries who may have helped him, maybe even Iraq. Later that night at a meeting of the president and his cabinet, says Bob Woodward, "Rumsfeld actually puts Iraq on the table and says, 'Part of our response maybe should be attacking Iraq. It's an opportunity.' So he was the first to mention it."

Discussion of attacking Iraq is tabled - temporarily; instead, the U.S. will go after the bin Laden-backed Taliban regime in Afghanistan. But the attacks against the U.S. prove to Rumsfeld that more than ever, transforming the military is a necessity.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronfeld.html

 

[aps]

^
Yes I was aware of that thread. However, by page 2 the postings had gotten so far away from the topic. Also, my focus here is not so much on the Military calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, but rather Why Bush continues to stand by him.

(1) Because he doesn't want anyone else to come in there and try to take charge of the situation. Rumsfeld does as he is told.

(2) Because he's stubborn, and he feels that if he accepts Rumsfeld's resignation, he has caved to what the public wants.

I say keep 'em. The longer he stays, the worse things will get for Bush.

 

[tecoyah]

Neither Bush, nor Rumsfeld paid much attention to generals before the war.....why do we think they will do so now?

 

[shuamort]

This is all being discussed on a thread into it's 7th or 8th page just so you are aware.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/todays-news/10201-another-general-joins-ranks-opposing-rumsfeld.html

Locking thread. Please follow above link.