# Rummy to Bush



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Dear Mr. President:

You have entrusted me with two vital missions: to modernize the greatest military force in the world, and to achieve victory in Iraq. While I believe we are well on the way to acheive both of these important goals, I am concerned that my continued tenure as Secretary of Defense may serve as an impediment to your important efforts to work in a bipartisan way with the Congress of the United States. Consequently, I hereby submit my resignation, effective immediately.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I put 'by the end of 2006', which covers all of the other ones except 'never'. I further predict that Rummy will copy-and-paste the exact wording from Jack's post.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I chose never...I don't believe the man's ego would allow it, and that is just so sad!


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Jack,

I think if you asked most military historians they'd tell you that on changes and achievements alone Donald Rumsfeld has accomplished more during his tenure as SoD than any of his predecessors. 

To manage the changing environment of modern inter-global terrorist warfare brought to the forefront after 9/11, to turn the albatross that is the Pentagon to adopt a new way of thinking and to engage in two separate wars; Iraq and Afghanistan as well as to manage the proxy battles in places like the Philippines and the Horn of Africa is no small feat. To do it with less than 5,000 KIA's is nothing short of unprecedented in warfare.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*Nobody was right!!*

Well, Rummy just resigned!!!!

Nobody in the poll picked that outcome.

I think it's great for the nation. What do you think?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I think it's great, especially since he's being replaced by Robert Gates. Gates may have the ability and inclination to be more skeptical of intelligence claims than Rummy.

On the other hand, the problems we are facing right now have been caused by Bush, not Rumsfeld. Unless Bush becomes willing to hear dissenting voices no personnel changes will accomplish anything.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

Oh, well....


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

In a reply to a question Bush just admitted that he lied the other day when he said Rumsfeld was going to stay to the end of his term. He admits that he did it to deflect attention from the topic a few days before the election.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> In a reply to a question Bush just admitted that he lied the other day when he said Rumsfeld was going to stay to the end of his term. He admits that he did it to deflect attention from the topic a few days before the election.


Yea, I'm watching that as well...

There's a lot of spinning going on.

I especially liked the question from FOX News about how he's been bantering about how a vote for Dems is a vote for defeat. Bush's response:

Yea, but now they've won.

-spence


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Too late. He's gone.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> In a reply to a question Bush just admitted that he lied the other day when he said Rumsfeld was going to stay to the end of his term. He admits that he did it to deflect attention from the topic a few days before the election.


And what's wrong with that? It was a stupid question.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> And what's wrong with that? It was a stupid question.


Not considering how far Bush went to assert the fact.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> Not considering how far Bush went to assert the fact.
> 
> -spence


Of course he had to. I ask again what's wrong with that?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> In a reply to a question Bush just admitted that he lied the other day when he said Rumsfeld was going to stay to the end of his term. He admits that he did it to deflect attention from the topic a few days before the election.


Come on - that's pretty lame. It's no different that Hillary or any other politician promising to serve out his/her term when he/she knows full well he/she will not if elected to a higher office.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> ...
> On the other hand, the problems we are facing right now have been caused by Bush, not Rumsfeld. Unless Bush becomes willing to hear dissenting voices no personnel changes will accomplish anything.


I see...

The destruction of the WTC's, damage to the Pentagon, and a crash in a Pennsylvania fields...
The fact that over 3,000 Americans were all innocent passengers/bystanders...
That Hussein was within a year of having nuclear weapons, had WMD's, had allowed the Al Qaida to operate within Iraq, were never a threat to us, or our allies in the Middle East...
That our way of life and liberty have been overtly threatened by those same rag-headed Islamic fascists...
*were all President Bush's fault!*

Thanks for enlightening me on the subject... :crazy:

Did you get your PhD in Geopolitical History from the same source as John Kerry and Jane Fonda? You and the ostriches would get along really well.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> I think if you asked most military historians they'd tell you that on changes and achievements alone Donald Rumsfeld has accomplished more during his tenure as SoD than any of his predecessors.


That's exactly right Bill. His transformation of the armed forces was historic.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Come on - that's pretty lame. It's no different that Hillary or any other politician promising to serve out his/her term when he/she knows full well he/she will not if elected to a higher office.


1. No politician gives an interview if he doesn't think it is in his interest. He didn't need to invite them into the Oval Office for an interview knowing that the question was likely to be asked.

2. He doesn't have to answer every question he is asked.

3. For someone who likes to portray himself as open and honest (clearly false, but we don't need to get into that) he didn't have to lie.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pendennis said:


> I see...
> 
> The destruction of the WTC's, damage to the Pentagon, and a crash in a Pennsylvania fields...
> The fact that over 3,000 Americans were all innocent passengers/bystanders...
> ...


Your first two points are true, and nobody with any sense would gainsay them.
Your third point is demonstrably false.
Bush and his decisions, especially the war,have made your last point worse.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> And what's wrong with that? It was a stupid question.


What makes it stupid to ask a question about something so many people are also asking about, and that Bush was already planning? It would have been bad journalism not to.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> What makes it stupid to ask a question about something so many people are also asking about, and that Bush was already planning? It would have been bad journalism not to.


it was bad journalism to expect an answer at that time. if you were in that position do you think the likelihood of being fed spin would have been more or less had it been asked after the election? do you really think the POTUS would throw out a bombshell like that within a few days of an election?

Beside, the news got out anyway. I think the news media is upset because they got scooped by the person they were trying to scoop.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Does anyone know verbatim what the President's response to that question was?


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*It all hinges on your point #3!*



pendennis;
[LIST said:


> [*]That Hussein was within a year of having nuclear weapons, had WMD's, had allowed the Al Qaida to operate within Iraq, were never a threat to us, or our allies in the Middle East...
> [*].


[/LIST]This is demonstrably false and is the crux of the problem. The rest of what you said I would agree with.

By using your point #3 to lead us into a destructive war that the experts (not only me ) say has made the world a more dangerous place, GWB wasted a huge amount of the goodwill and support of the American and the World's people (after 9-11) to bring us to this ugly morass in Iraq!

Of course this was not GWB's goal or expectation. But it is the result of his leadership. As he says himself. Ultimate authority rests with him.

Do you disagree that he let Rumsfeld stay much too long in the face of operational and political results, both of which were divisive for our country and accomplished nothing?


----------



## erasmus (Sep 26, 2004)

whnay. said:


> Jack,
> 
> I think if you asked most military historians they'd tell you that on changes and achievements alone Donald Rumsfeld has accomplished more during his tenure as SoD than any of his predecessors.
> 
> To manage the changing environment of modern inter-global terrorist warfare brought to the forefront after 9/11, to turn the albatross that is the Pentagon to adopt a new way of thinking and to engage in two separate wars; Iraq and Afghanistan as well as to manage the proxy battles in places like the Philippines and the Horn of Africa is no small feat. To do it with less than 5,000 KIA's is nothing short of unprecedented in warfare.


RMA (revolution in military affairs) and defense transformation were already underway during the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s. Rumsfeld simply accelerated what has been increasingly obvious to security specialists and practitioners since 1989.

The purely operational aspects of managing two "wars" (or more accurately two separate theatres of engagement), while not trivial, are hardly unprecedented. The low KIA count may seem impressive but avoids the more important question - are we winning?

Indeed, casualty numbers have been low precisely because of Rumsfeld's questionable belief that mission success, regardless of context and situation, is less and less predicated on deploying boots on the ground. The larger question is whether this rigid assumption, while leading to lower casualties, has actually stymied successful resolution and exit from Iraq. I think he has made the classic mistake of assuming the next war (Iraq) will be fought under the same conditions as the last war (Afghanistan).


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Your first two points are true, and nobody with any sense would gainsay them.
> Your third point is demonstrably false.
> Bush and his decisions, especially the war,have made your last point worse.


My third bullet is true, every word. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Where do you want to face Islamic fascism? Do you want to wait until we are fighting snipers and terrorists in the streets of America's cities, or do you want to burn their collective a$$es "over there". There is no choice.

The express purpose of the militant Islamic movement is the subjugation of Christians and forced conversion to Islam, and the literal destruction of Israel and death of all Jews. There is no discussion or negotiation, especially when their premise is someone else's death.

Your naivety is nearly beyond belief.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pendennis said:


> My third bullet is true, every word. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
> 
> Your naivety is nearly beyond belief.


You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. There is nothing true in what you assert, and if you have paid attention to reality you would know that.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> [/list]This is demonstrably false and is the crux of the problem. The rest of what you said I would agree with.
> 
> By using your point #3 to lead us into a destructive war that the experts (not only me ) say has made the world a more dangerous place, GWB wasted a huge amount of the goodwill and support of the American and the World's people (after 9-11) to bring us to this ugly morass in Iraq!
> 
> ...


The world is a more dangerous place, but not as a result of our intervention in Iraq. The "World's people" by and large, act like sheep going to the slaughter. Look at what's happened in France. Their magnanimous immigration policy of Muslims from Africa has wreaked havoc upon their economy and security. Their continued appeasement has only encouraged more lawlessness and terrorism. France is but one example, but it is typical of the appeasement of the lawless and the fascists.

My only problem with the way the war was conducted, was that we did not declare martial law upon capitulation of the Iraqi army; and the summary courts martial and execution of those who violated the law. The decision not to use martial law was a political expediency, and not sound military logic. The troopers should have dropped a grenade in the spider hole to begin with.

Secretary Rumsfeld was the lightning rod for the political decisions made by the administration, including the State Department. The Secretary of Defense seldom, if ever, has the final say on conducting war. For you to imply that he was the prime mover, is unfounded speculation, and contrary to U.S. policy. The Department of Defense is an instrument of the President, not vice-versa.

Lest you forget, the same was done in Germany and Japan at the end of World War II. It took more than three years in Germany to establish a functioning democracy, fighting guerrillas and working our way around Russian Communist blockades and their abetting of those guerrillas.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. There is nothing true in what you assert, and if you have paid attention to reality you would know that.


*Every Western intelligence service* agreed that Hussein had WMD's, and there has never been a dispute over that. WMD's, albeit older ones, were found in Iraq this year. The more up to date WMD's were undoubtedly shipped to Syria or Iran in the period when Hussein stalled the UN inspectors. In the last three weeks, a U.S. government web site was opened and then shut down, after demonstrating how close Iraq came to having nuclear weapons.

I reside in a state of reality from which you obviously hide. The world is a dangerous place, and getting more dangerous by the day, thanks to the Chamberlain-esque, head in the sand, touchy-feely state you seem to think that fascist Islam offers.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*Well said Pendennis*

I could not agree more!! A lot of chemical and Anthrax filled barrels were sent to Syria. Also, the Mirage jets that the French upgraded with new avionics were buried in the Western desert-I know because worked with the teams that unearthed them. 
Bill


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

The eye opener for me was the Stephen Hayes book The Connection. Clear evidence of Iraq's terrorism involvement.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pendennis said:


> *Every Western intelligence service* agreed that Hussein had WMD's, and there has never been a dispute over that. WMD's, albeit older ones, were found in Iraq this year. The more up to date WMD's were undoubtedly shipped to Syria or Iran in the period when Hussein stalled the UN inspectors.


Remember what you said:

That Hussein was within a year of having nuclear weapons, had WMD's, had allowed the Al Qaida to operate within Iraq, were never a threat to us, or our allies in the Middle East...

Does the fact that Western intelligence services may have believed before the invasion that Hussein had chemical/biological weapons prove that he did? Absolutely not; Rumsfeld and Powell repeatedly claimed not only that he had them, but that we knew where they were. If he did, we could have found them. At the time of the invasion the U.N. weapons inspectors were there, were getting cooperation, and were not finding anything because there was nothing to find, yet the best you can do is suggest that somehow he magically made them disappear.

He allowed al Qaida to operate in Iraq. Again, this is simply false. They weren't there, except for al-Zarqawi, who was in the Kurd-controlled areas, and the United States had the ability to take him out but chose not to do it because they didn't want to undermine the case for war.

This is just typical of conservatives: you make wild claims, distort the response when it comes, and can't come up with any evidence to support the baseless allegations you made.

Go to Mapquest and download directions back to the real world.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> The eye opener for me was the Stephen Hayes book The Connection. Clear evidence of Iraq's terrorism involvement.


Or, just the pathetic narcissism of someone who feels like he "owns" an idea and refuses to give it up even after it's been definitively dead to everyone who could (to borrow from a truly great politician, the likes of which we sorely need in America) think properly.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

It must be a brave new world indeed that you reside in, one in which you argue passionately to keep dictators in power. One wonders how much you did for Milosevic, after all he was a good socialist (at least early in his career before Serbia became a kleptocracy), like your new Senator elect. 

Karl


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl, if you want to draw up a list of all the countries in the world that have governments you don't like, maybe you can convince Bush to invade them, too. Not much of a governing principle, but I guess you have to believe in something.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

pendennis said:


> I see...
> The destruction of the WTC's, damage to the Pentagon, and a crash in a Pennsylvania fields...
> The fact that over 3,000 Americans were all innocent passengers/bystanders...
> That Hussein was within a year of having nuclear weapons, had WMD's, had allowed the Al Qaida to operate within Iraq, were never a threat to us, or our allies in the Middle East...
> ...


Of course they were. Even if Bush had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks (a contention that is more controversial than some might wish to believe), he was still grossly negligent in the months leading up to it.

https://www.slate.com/id/2098861/


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

He must have thought he was back at college.



JLPWCXIII said:


> Of course they were. Even if Bush had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks (a contention that is more controversial than some might wish to believe), he was still grossly negligent in the months leading up to it.
> 
> https://www.slate.com/id/2098861/


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Jack,
> 
> It must be a brave new world indeed that you reside in, one in which you argue passionately to keep dictators in power. One wonders how much you did for Milosevic, after all he was a good socialist (at least early in his career before Serbia became a kleptocracy), like your new Senator elect.


The question, as you well know, isn't "dictators are bad, yes or no?" but _"what is the most effective and sane use of American power?"_

(That ignores that some dictators are better than the alternatives. Would you rather Pervez Musharraf not run Pakistan, for example?)

A dictator like Slobo, who instigated three near-genocides (Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo), that's a no-brainer. (Had Bush decided to go after today's oil-wielding Slobo-wannabe, the brutal thugs in the Sudan, I may have even voted for the man a second time in 2004.)

A dictator like Robert Mugabe, who lost his shirt whilst illegally interfering in the Congolese civil war and then destroyed his country as a diversion, that's a strong "maybe."

A dictator like Saddam Hussein, whose last act of international aggression was punished in 1991 and who presided over a lower level of torture than we preside over today, that's much more a "huh"?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

SGladwell said:


> A dictator like Saddam Hussein, whose last act of international aggression was punished in 1991 and who presided over a lower level of torture than we preside over today, that's much more a "huh"?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

pendennis said:


> *Every Western intelligence service* agreed that Hussein had WMD's, and there has never been a dispute over that.


Absolutely! How easy it is for some to sit back with perfect hindsight and make claims as to whether WMD were present or not. Had Saddam been more forthcoming with inspectors then maybe that suspicion would not have existed. When dealing with a killer one should err on the side of caution. That caution in this case being the safety of the American people.

Remember also what the Dulfer report stated. Saddam was actively working toward toppling the sanction regime by using kickbacks and was siphoning money from the oil-for-food program to build luxurious palaces and keep in place the machinery for starting up a WMD program as soon as the regime fell.

Now more than ever I am convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do and that the conclusions about Saddam and his WMD's justify our actions.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Rove isn't as smart as everyone claims.*

This is one of the things I think we can conclude from what happened with Rumsfeld. Sure, the wingers were all over the place in the last few weeks before the election, proclaiming their confidence that the R's were going to hold the House and the Senate. That was clearly just spin, and there is no way that they actually believed it. On the other hand, they didn't fire Rummy until the day after the election. This seems like pretty good evidence to me that they either thought they were going to win, or they thought they had a good shot at it. If they thought they were going to lose they would have had to figure that firing Rumsfeld might help, and yet they didn't do it.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Even if Bush had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks (a contention that is more controversial than some might wish to believe


On the one hand, the Libs cite Bush's plans for privatizing social security as evidence that all he cares about are his millionaire buddies on Wall Street. On the other hand, the Libs suspect him of plotting to knock down the twin towers of the World Trade Center, where one would think some of his millionaire Wall Street buddies had offices (Cantor Fitzgerald?).

Then again, we're talking about the same Libs who think Bush is simultaneously a moron who can barely handle the English language _and_ an evil genius who lied and schemed to start a war for oil in Iraq (if he's so smart, and it's such a big evil conspiracy, why didn't he just _plant_ some WMDs in Iraq so that he could claim he'd found them there?)

In response to other comments in this thread, I say the whole country should devote 100% of its time and effort to getting Bush to ADMIT the things he's lied about and APOLOGIZE for the things he's done wrong. For the next ten years (no point in letting up on the guy just because he's left office). That has to be everyone's number one priority, because there really is nothing more important facing us right now than getting admissions and apologies from George W. Bush. I'll end with my favorite intelligent and informed Liberal slogan, Bush = Hitler.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I'm all for holding Bush accountable for his lies and ineptitude. Someone has to. Apparently the Republican party, once the ones touting personal responsibility, seem reluctant to do so.

Oh, and if you want to cry about a politician being hounded even once he's out of office, look no further than the wingers' favourite whipping boy: Bill Clinton.

Take the drubbing and understand that this country is far more centrist than either parties' extremes seem to want to believe.

I look forward to a return to the middle, including a welcome return to fiscal responsibility and something other than overheated, religiously tinged rhetoric directing our social policies.



rojo said:


> On the one hand, the Libs cite Bush's plans for privatizing social security as evidence that all he cares about are his millionaire buddies on Wall Street. On the other hand, the Libs suspect him of plotting to knock down the twin towers of the World Trade Center, where one would think some of his millionaire Wall Street buddies had offices (Cantor Fitzgerald?).
> 
> Then again, we're talking about the same Libs who think Bush is simultaneously a moron who can barely handle the English language _and_ an evil genius who lied and schemed to start a war for oil in Iraq (if he's so smart, and it's such a big evil conspiracy, why didn't he just _plant_ some WMDs in Iraq so that he could claim he'd found them there?)
> 
> In response to other comments in this thread, I say the whole country should devote 100% of its time and effort to getting Bush to ADMIT the things he's lied about and APOLOGIZE for the things he's done wrong. For the next ten years (no point in letting up on the guy just because he's left office). That has to be everyone's number one priority, because there really is nothing more important facing us right now than getting admissions and apologies from George W. Bush. I'll end with my favorite intelligent and informed Liberal slogan, Bush = Hitler.


----------

