PDA

View Full Version : Top CON talking head: Rumsfeld will go down in history as ruining the military


memyselfI
04-14-2006, 05:38 PM
according to Ed Rollins. Not the Dems, not the anti-war protesters, not the American pubic disapproving of the war but RUMSFLED. Rollins is continuing his full frontal assault on the WH, Pentagon, and Rumsfeld on Lou Dobbs this evening. :clap:

Anyone know what is the total number of high profile Cons jumping/jumped the sinking ship? :clap:

penchief
04-14-2006, 06:32 PM
according to Ed Rollins. Not the Dems, not the anti-war protesters, not the American pubic disapproving of the war but RUMSFLED. Rollins is continuing his full frontal assault on the WH, Pentagon, and Rumsfeld on Lou Dobbs this evening. :clap:

Anyone know what is the total number of high profile Cons jumping/jumped the sinking ship? :clap:

I don't know about the number of cons who are bailing but I know I jumped ship a long time ago. Cheneyburton will go down as the worst presidency in this country's history. Not soley for it's incompetence but moreso for it's overly zealous incompetence.

How often do we get to witness fools who choose not to acknowledge the idiocy of their own policies in the way that these particular idiots ignored the pragmatic consequences of their self-serving small-minded agenda?

TEX
04-14-2006, 09:38 PM
The Bush Administration looks more like joke on a daily basis. ROFL

Dave Lane
04-15-2006, 01:15 AM
I keep thinking that some how some way they will get something major right. I mean its just the odds after some point.

Dave

patteeu
04-15-2006, 10:29 AM
I don't know about the number of cons who are bailing but I know I jumped ship a long time ago. Cheneyburton will go down as the worst presidency in this country's history. Not soley for it's incompetence but moreso for it's overly zealous incompetence.

How often do we get to witness fools who choose not to acknowledge the idiocy of their own policies in the way that these particular idiots ignored the pragmatic consequences of their self-serving small-minded agenda?

It's not even the worst presidency this decade.

stevieray
04-15-2006, 11:11 AM
I don't know about the number of cons who are bailing but I know I jumped ship a long time ago. Cheneyburton will go down as the worst presidency in this country's history. Not soley for it's incompetence but moreso for it's overly zealous incompetence.

How often do we get to witness fools who choose not to acknowledge the idiocy of their own policies in the way that these particular idiots ignored the pragmatic consequences of their self-serving small-minded agenda?

you should write for soap operas.

ROFL

jAZ
04-15-2006, 11:37 AM
It's not even the worst presidency this decade.
This says so much about your detachment from reality. It's as if you choose to pull your pants down and take a rotten crap on your personal credibility simply so that you can show how blindly loyal you are to your newfound Republicanism.

I'm utterly speechless.

Chiefs Express
04-15-2006, 11:42 AM
Rumsfeld has a long way to go to match what Robert McNamara did under Kennedy and Johnson.

It's also interesting to see that Rumsfeld has been the SECDEF on more than one occasion.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2006, 12:02 PM
[QUOTE=Chiefs Express]Rumsfeld has a long way to go to match what Robert McNamara did under Kennedy and Johnson.
QUOTE]

You mean transforming the military that won the Gulf War into a 'light, mobile force' to fulfill a neocon masturbation fantasy doesn't come close to what Kennedy and Johnson did??? Granted, they had their f*ckups, and Vietnam was a huge clusterf*ck, but they didn't rape the military so violently that we would be unable to fight more than one regional war when we are supposed to be the greatest military power in the world.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2006, 12:15 PM
One more thing to all the ass clowns who actually thought the planning of this war was competent:

An Excerpt from the Powell Doctrine:

The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?


I guess Rumsfeld did his military planning on "Opposite Day"...:hmmm:

Chiefs Express
04-15-2006, 12:22 PM
Rumsfeld has a long way to go to match what Robert McNamara did under Kennedy and Johnson.


You mean transforming the military that won the Gulf War into a 'light, mobile force' to fulfill a neocon masturbation fantasy doesn't come close to what Kennedy and Johnson did??? Granted, they had their f*ckups, and Vietnam was a huge clusterf*ck, but they didn't rape the military so violently that we would be unable to fight more than one regional war when we are supposed to be the greatest military power in the world.

The equiping of the military that was done by McNamara was by far the worst thing he did to the military. He build new ships with old equipment, the cost to keep them going was more than the original cost of the hulls. The weapons that he approved for the army were very lacking, ever heard of the M-16? There is much more, but I don't think that you are looking at facts.

After the Gulf War the military was drawn down in a drastic manner. Rumsfeld had nothing to do with that. The draw down is something that occurs after every conflict that we have had. We went from a Navy with almost 600 ships to a Navy with less than 350 ships. The size of the military was shrunk in much the same manner and all of this happened before....BEFORE....GWB was elected and Rumsfeld was appointed as SECDEF.

If you are going to argue, at least have some ammunition in your weapon before you start pulling the trigger!

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 01:13 PM
The equiping of the military that was done by McNamara was by far the worst thing he did to the military. He build new ships with old equipment, the cost to keep them going was more than the original cost of the hulls. The weapons that he approved for the army were very lacking, ever heard of the M-16? There is much more, but I don't think that you are looking at facts.

You make some valid points. Wasn't it under McNamara that the F-4 (though the Rhino was, and still can be, a hell of an aircraft in certain roles) was depoloyed as an dual role air superiority/ground attack fighter w/out a cannon, even though the Navy and AF pilots were screaming for one?

As for the M-16, the fact our many of our troops preferred captured AK's speaks volumes.


After the Gulf War the military was drawn down in a drastic manner. Rumsfeld had nothing to do with that. The draw down is something that occurs after every conflict that we have had. We went from a Navy with almost 600 ships to a Navy with less than 350 ships. The size of the military was shrunk in much the same manner and all of this happened before....BEFORE....GWB was elected and Rumsfeld was appointed as SECDEF.

True, the process was started during Bush 41's admin. seeking the "peace dividend" after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, and continued through the Clinton years. Some effort was made to move from the massive "Heavy Corps" model to a more flexible force in this time, but not enough, IMO.

That said, I still believe Rumsfeld's current tenure as SecDef qualifies as incompenent, at best. Again, JMO.

Chiefs Express
04-15-2006, 02:05 PM
You make some valid points. Wasn't it under McNamara that the F-4 (though the Rhino was, and still can be, a hell of an aircraft in certain roles) was depoloyed as an dual role air superiority/ground attack fighter w/out a cannon, even though the Navy and AF pilots were screaming for one?

As for the M-16, the fact our many of our troops preferred captured AK's speaks volumes.



True, the process was started during Bush 41's admin. seeking the "peace dividend" after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, and continued through the Clinton years. Some effort was made to move from the massive "Heavy Corps" model to a more flexible force in this time, but not enough, IMO.

That said, I still believe Rumsfeld's current tenure as SecDef qualifies as incompenent, at best. Again, JMO.

I won't argue against your comment, but I will argue that he is by far not the worst man we've had in that office.

I do have a tremendous respect for the current Deputy Secretary of Defense. I've met him and got to spend four hours in light discussions and just a few moments regarding the situation of the country during my recall in 2002.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 02:51 PM
I won't argue against your comment, but I will argue that he is by far not the worst man we've had in that office.

I do have a tremendous respect for the current Deputy Secretary of Defense. I've met him and got to spend four hours in light discussions and just a few moments regarding the situation of the country during my recall in 2002.

I'll agree, he's not the worst.

As for the DepSecDef, I don't really know enough to comment. He does have an impressive resume and academic <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html">bio</a>, that's for certain.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2006, 04:10 PM
The equiping of the military that was done by McNamara was by far the worst thing he did to the military. He build new ships with old equipment, the cost to keep them going was more than the original cost of the hulls. The weapons that he approved for the army were very lacking, ever heard of the M-16? There is much more, but I don't think that you are looking at facts.

After the Gulf War the military was drawn down in a drastic manner. Rumsfeld had nothing to do with that. The draw down is something that occurs after every conflict that we have had. We went from a Navy with almost 600 ships to a Navy with less than 350 ships. The size of the military was shrunk in much the same manner and all of this happened before....BEFORE....GWB was elected and Rumsfeld was appointed as SECDEF.

If you are going to argue, at least have some ammunition in your weapon before you start pulling the trigger!

Like this:

"The Pentagon has in the post Vietnam period favored using over-whelming force (the opposite of limited engagement) with well defined objectives and exit strategies. This has often come at odds with Rumsfeld’s administration. With the apparent success of the Rumsfeld doctrine in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld pushed for the extension of the doctrine in Iraq.

Rumsfeld wanted only 60,000 troops in the Iraq invasion. The Pentagon (General Franks) wanted 400,000. 140,000 went into Iraq. At issue was not the number of troops needed to topple the regime, but the number need to maintain the peace afterwards. In the days before the invasion the Pentagon had declared that the invasion would last mere weeks, not months. However, the Pentagon maintained that “boots” were necessary to maintain the peace."

Talk about incompetence

:bang:

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2006, 04:15 PM
I will however concede that the first versions of the M-16 were shitiful, you make a valid point. However, the fact that the GI's preferred the AK to the 16 really doesn't speak all that badly about the 16, it just proves that the AK is one of the greatest rifles of all time. The 16's are a perfectly fine rifle when well maintained. You can piss on the receiver of the AK when it's frozen and you can shoot it when logged down with sand w/ no issues. The 16 is a far different story. The F4 was not a bad plane at all--remember the Wild Weasels in the Gulf War?? They carried out some of the most daring missions 30 years after the development speaks truth to its viability as a weapons platform.

Chiefs Express
04-15-2006, 05:19 PM
Like this:

"The Pentagon has in the post Vietnam period favored using over-whelming force (the opposite of limited engagement) with well defined objectives and exit strategies. This has often come at odds with Rumsfeld’s administration. With the apparent success of the Rumsfeld doctrine in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld pushed for the extension of the doctrine in Iraq.

Rumsfeld wanted only 60,000 troops in the Iraq invasion. The Pentagon (General Franks) wanted 400,000. 140,000 went into Iraq. At issue was not the number of troops needed to topple the regime, but the number need to maintain the peace afterwards. In the days before the invasion the Pentagon had declared that the invasion would last mere weeks, not months. However, the Pentagon maintained that “boots” were necessary to maintain the peace."

Talk about incompetence

:bang:

Your opinion of incompetence is just that, you opinion. One woudl think that, by your comments, Rumsfeld makes all of the decisions regarding our forces on his own, you could not be further from the truth. Rumsfeld uses the Generals and Admiral on the JCS to make decisions, he takes input from them and acts based on what they recommend. If you honestly think differently you might want to attempt to get educated.

Your comment that General Franks wanted 400,000 troops in Iraq you are somewhat confused with the number you use. 400,000 ground troops in Iraq would have just about removed any option we might have had regarding any other military action the could be present.

Your bias is noted

BigMeatballDave
04-15-2006, 06:57 PM
I've jumped ship. Rummy is as useless as foreskin. Dipshit cannot even take advise from 6 Generals. Then, Bush sticks up for him. Brilliant!

BigMeatballDave
04-15-2006, 07:00 PM
The Bush Administration looks more like joke on a daily basis. ROFLThey do not look like a joke, they ARE a joke. A very BAD one!

BigMeatballDave
04-15-2006, 07:02 PM
I keep thinking that some how some way they will get something major right. I mean its just the odds after some point.

DaveYup. The Law of Averages has a way of evening things out. They keep swinging and missing...

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2006, 08:27 PM
Your opinion of incompetence is just that, you opinion. One woudl think that, by your comments, Rumsfeld makes all of the decisions regarding our forces on his own, you could not be further from the truth. Rumsfeld uses the Generals and Admiral on the JCS to make decisions, he takes input from them and acts based on what they recommend. If you honestly think differently you might want to attempt to get educated.

Your comment that General Franks wanted 400,000 troops in Iraq you are somewhat confused with the number you use. 400,000 ground troops in Iraq would have just about removed any option we might have had regarding any other military action the could be present.

Your bias is noted


It's cited in a wikipedia article, TC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_doctrine

Chiefs Express
04-15-2006, 08:30 PM
I've jumped ship. Rummy is as useless as foreskin. Dipshit cannot even take advise from 6 Generals. Then, Bush sticks up for him. Brilliant!

You mean advice?

What you have failed to understand is that those Generals are just part of the food chain and not tied directly to the SECDEF, maybe not even directly to the JCS. As general officers they might have some say in the operations that they have assigned to them, but to say that they advised the SECDEF and he didn't use it is baseless.

Chiefs Express
04-15-2006, 08:32 PM
It's cited in a wikipedia article, TC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_doctrine

So you would want to use the bulk of the ground forces available and leave other areas of the world in a situation that could be disasterous? This is not even mentioning that the internal problems of the country could not be address by military force if there were a major terrorist attack again that would require the active military.

Your opinion is still just your opinion.