[BIGJACK]

Some of our best military leaders have chosen to retire rather than serve under Rumsfield. They are now, without fear
of pursecution, asking for his dismissal.
I think it is past time for him to go.:cuss:

[Camp David]

Some of our best military leaders have chosen to retire rather than serve under Rumsfield.

Perhaps you can elaborate why you think Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld should resign?

Since we have been without domestic terror incident since 09/11/01, I believe the Secretary of Defense has ably served America, both home and abroad.

[DonP]

What makes a retired General the "Best"?

Isn't it amazing how the minute any military person says something critical about Rumsfeld or Bush it's front page news for some folks?

How many general, and other staff grade, officers have retired in the past 6 years and said nothing, or worse yet, are supportive of the mission? How many regularly appear on talking head shows and talk about how well the campaign is going?

Thank heaven General officers don't make policy in our system. Douglas MacArthur learned that the hard way when he pissed off that feisty little haberdasher from Missouri.

No administration should change their stated policy based on one, two, or a handful, of retired military flacking a new "tell all" book or acting as a paid consultant for this TV show or that TV show. Or change it based on popularity polls run by folks with their own agenda.

Rumsfeld may be a PITA to work for, and I know from personal experience that the general staff always has had an extermely low opinion of the "civilians" that run the DoD, but he's still the man in charge.

FWIW, my son has done two tours with different units in the sandbox and the troopers he knows think Rumsfeld is a hard ass but they respect him for it. He also has a reputation for getting out of the HQ buildings and talking to the troops directly, without the general staff escort. In my book that alone gets him extra points.

But then again Cindy Sheehan, the New York Times, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, and Katrina VandenHouvel don't like him and that's good enough for some folks and their opinion is certainly more valid then some dumb ground pounders.

[Clean97GTI]

Kinda hard for the Secretary of Defense to call someone a domestic terrorist...especially when that person is your boss.

[Leatherneck]

Somebody please close the blinds; the moonbeams are bothering me. Thanks.

TC

[Kingcreek]

I agree he should go, and alot of others of his clan, but for entirely different reasons.
http://www.mercola.com/2006/apr/4/donald_rumsfeld_rakes_in_5_million_for_tamiflu.htm

[Clean97GTI]

Kingcreek, any chance of you posting the story you linked us to?
You have to register using your e-mail address and I'd rather not get any extra spam.

[Master Blaster]

Rumsfeld is responsible for our swift success in Afghanistan. He understood that it would have been a huge mistake to go in with a conventional invaison force like we did in Iraq.

As a result the war was short and used native Afghan assets on the ground rather than our troops. Most likely had we gone in with a conventional invaision force the Afghans would have banded together and fought us. The way that they fought the Soviets, British etc. in the past. Unfortunately the military is geared towards a land war on the open plains of Europe with tanks artillery and such, what they were anticipating in the war against the Soviet Hedgemony, the last war.

The fact that Clinton kept their funding minimal, also has meant that Rumsfeld has had to fight the old Dinosaurs who are still preparing for that massed land war on the plains of Europe, You Know THE EXPERT GENERALS WHO HAVE RETIRED, and now appear on Nightline and at other $50,000 a pop leftwing speaking engagements, ERRRRR News Shows.

He has had to fight them over the money and the organization needed to fight in 2006, which includes more special forces and more MPs/ Peacekeepers. While the old Geezers struggle to keep those older programs funded. This is why you hear so much about how unhappy folks are with his leadership.

IMHO he is doing what is needed to streamline the military and prepare them for future conflicts. Anytime you try to radically change an organization like the military there are going to be unhappy people who are too invested in the old ways.

JMHO YMMV

[Lone_Gunman]

The Taliban is on the comeback in Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld has done nothing that will last there.

[Clean97GTI]

He helped secure portions of the country and friendly leadership for a Unocal gas pipeline that runs or will run through the country.

By what must be a complete and total coincidence, Hamad Karzai is a former Unocal consultant. Funny how things like that work out. :rolleyes:

[seeker_two]

He helped secure portions of the country and friendly leadership for a Unocal gas pipeline that runs or will run through the country.

By what must be a complete and total coincidence, Hamad Karzai is a former Unocal consultant. Funny how things like that work out. :rolleyes:

I think THAT particular coincidence is more due to Rumsfeld's direct supervisor (and his family's financial portfolio) than his own initiative... :cuss:

[Lobotomy Boy]

I work with a retired U.S. army colonel--he's the publisher of the military imprint for the company I work for--and we discuss these issues at lenght. He's old-school; he believes that the role of the military does not include questioning the leadership.

The thing is, this group of generals who are retiring and condemning Rumsfeld are also of the same old school. The fact that they are turning down promotions to retire and then condemning the leadership tells me that the leadership must be so truly awful that by speaking out, these men who have devoted their lives to the military are choosing their patriotic duty to their country over their professional duty to the military. That in turn tells me that Rumsfeld must be far, far worse than we ever imagined.

The tactic of this lowlife adminstration will be the same chickencrap that they have been dishing out for years and years--smear these brave men who have served their country with honor for their entire lives. This is just my opinion, but people who buy into that should be ashamed of themselves.

[Kingcreek]

I don't think registration is required but here is copy from mercola.com :

Donald Rumsfeld Rakes in $5 Million For Tamiflu


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has made more than $5 million from selling shares in the firm that discovered and developed the flu drug Tamiflu.

He also retains shares worth $25 million or more. Tamiflu is bought in mass quantities by the government in order to treat a predicted outbreak of avian flu.

The drug was developed by Gilead Sciences. Mr. Rumsfeld was on the board of Gilead between 1988 and 2001, and was chairman starting in 1997. When he left to join the Bush administration, he retained a large shareholding .

In 2003, the year before concerns about bird flu began, the company took a loss. But in 2004, Tamiflu sales nearly quadrupled, and then nearly quadrupled again in 2005.

Divestiture of his stocks in the corporation is not required by the Office of Government Ethics or the Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office.


Common Dreams.org March 12, 2006



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Mercola's Comment:


Some people may feel I have a grudge against the US Republican party. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a non-partisan issue.

The fact is that government is controlling the media that justifies them purchasing large amounts of drugs for an non-existent epidemic that personally benefits the current U.S. Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. The issue would be the same whatever his political party.

This is nothing new here for Mr. Rumsfeld as he has a long history of dabbling in health chicanery. At G.D. Searle he facilitated FDA approval for Nutrasweet.

More recently he served as head of Gilead Sciences, the company that developed, then leased the rights to Roche Pharmaceuticals, to the worthless flu drug Tamiflu.

When I wrote about Rumsfeld in December it was unclear just how much stock he held and how much it was worth. Now we know.

So far, Rumsfeld has made a "killing" (pun intended) on the stock market, and the estimations that set the current value of his remaining stock at $25 million are likely to be well under their actual value, considering Roche's decision to expand Tamiflu production.

Sadly, current ethics rules in American government don't prevent Rumsfeld from owning stocks or making money from health-harming substances like Tamiflu or aspartame, even though he likely has some say in their purchase or approval by the government, and therefore their stock value.

No surprise, since drug companies use their largesse to buy favors and influence from Congress and the White House.

[Clean97GTI]

I think its about time to implement some safeguards against ethical abuses.

For starters, if you are going to take public office, you can't hold any stake in a company with government contracts. You must sell your stock. If a company you hold stock in gets a government contract while you're in office, you must sell it off.

Lastly, just because its my idea, certain elected officials should only be paid a salary equal to the median income of the country.
You want more money, you don't get to vote it in anymore...you must actually better things for your country.

[Leatherneck]

What on earth does his divestiture of stock in Gilead--a non-DoD-oriented business--have to do with his performance as SecDef?

TC

[CAnnoneer]

The tactic of this lowlife adminstration will be the same chickencrap that they have been dishing out for years and years--smear these brave men who have served their country with honor for their entire lives.

+1

Priceless!

That is exactly what GWB & co. are. Lowlifes. They are a junta suitable for a banana republic. Their worst sin will be that they are practically handing over the power to the Hillarists. I hope they all rot in jail.

[Clean97GTI]

What on earth does his divestiture of stock in Gilead--a non-DoD-oriented business--have to do with his performance as SecDef?

Its got little to do with his duties as Defense Secretary and more to do with the ethics required of a person holding such a powerful position. I wonder what else Gilead holds patents on that our military uses.

[Erebus]

And I Am sure if he sold all his stock in Gilead everyone would leave him alone like they leave Cheney alone about Haliburton.

[Clean97GTI]

Well Erebus, people probably wouldn't leave him alone, but at least we'd be able to keep a handle on possible conflicting interests.

[Erebus]

Now let me ask a question.

What other company(ies) produce(s) this drug?

You see conflict of interest I see coincidence.

[Clean97GTI]

Gilead owns it.

There is a difference between production and patents.

[Kim]

I think we should have not worried about any of the oil fields or oil lines since that makes it look to some loonies that this was a war for oil. After all Bush is making alot of money off oil these days (NOT)and you know that makes you a devil in the minds of some loonies. Maybe they would have been happy if we had just allowed the oil fields and lines to be destroyed. They would be happy with 10.00 a gallon gas if it was availiable on the even or odd day of the week and the recession or depression world wide would have been wonderful. Nah they would be griping and pointing fingers that we did NOT protect those poor countries oil fields and lines and what an environmental diaster we let happen cause they are all on fire and that ugly black smoke is killing all the camels etc.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[MechAg94]

This whole thread is rediculous. Anytime an administration brings in people from private business, they will have situations like this. Sure, we should prevent that. That way, all the govt guys will be career politicians and buearucrats. That will improve things. :rolleyes:

It would be nice if some of you would make the attempt to hide your base hatred and contempt and actually post facts or reasoned opinions. There was a lot of shady dealing with Clinton cronies during the 90's, but I don't think I saw quite the same unreasoned hatred I see now. Not everyone is doing this, but even a few make the whole thread pretty nasty.

[Erebus]

Gilead owns it.

There is a difference between production and patents.

Exactly, if he owned stock or not they were going to buy it there.

[Kim]

Or they would be saying we planned to let the oil fields burn bacause it was so Cheny and HALIBURTON could make a big profit fixing the dang things. Yea that is the conspiracy. Those dang big Corporations are EVIL espically if any Republicians have one dollar invested in them. Corporation evil mantra is a left wing anti--capitalist rant. I wonder how many big whig Democrats own or are invested in or have any family members invested in any EVIL Corporation. Wonder how many small business Democrats have their business incorporated. Anyone care to even guess???????????????????????????????:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

[cookekdjr]

Rumsfield has got to go?
How very 2003.
Our country gave Rumsfield a seal of approval in 2004.
So his ideas to limit troop strength to "just few enough to lose" levels were ratified. As were his ideas to sanction torture, then hang out to dry every soldier who followed his order.
I told my wife not to worry in 2000, because even if Republicans won, they at least put smart, competant people in advisory roles. Boy do I look like an idiot now (Colin Powell doesn't count; W never listened to him; he liked Rumsfield better. W ran off everybody else who had a brain, too).
-David

[Ironballs]

Rumsfield is the best 'tell it like it is' -Real Man- type we have had for years...

I loved when reporters were grilling him over his use of the Daisy Cutter in Afganistan... he said we use it because it is so effective. Reporters protested asking effective at what, they are just big unguided bombs... and Rumsfield replied,... "effective in killing the enemy, and we know that by the bodies"

dont take any lefty PC crap... war is war,.. and he is straight about it, no sugar coating-

I am a big fan of Rumsfield...

[Clean97GTI]

Not quite sure what you're talking about Kim.
While I don't think oil is the only reason we overthrew two sovreign nations in three years, I believe it plays a rather large part.
You don't see the US landing troops in Sudan or Rwanda to liberate the people there. What about freeing the people of Columbia from the violence of the cocaine cartels? To be quite honest, there is no profit in doing such things.

Iraq has oil and now, has a friendly government which will sell it.
Afghanistan had nothing except a regime that we suspected of hiding a wanted terrorist (even though Clinton didn't act to capture Bin Laden when he was in Sudan and the Sudanese offered him to us) and broken down negotiations to run a gas pipeline through their land. Oddly enough, Karzai was a Unocal consultant...the same company who wanted to build said pipeline.

Mechag94, I don't see the hatred of corrupt officials as unreasonable. I was just as upset when we heard reports that a few European countries had back channel oil deals with Saddam Hussein that subverted the oil for food program.
What it comes down to is that we are fighting in the region of the world that holds most of the world's oil and its no coincidence.

[Cuda]

You don't see the US landing troops in Sudan or Rwanda to liberate the people there. What about freeing the people of Columbia from the violence of the cocaine cartels? To be quite honest, there is no profit in doing such things.

You're absolutly correct...

It boils down to national security. The ME has oil we need for the American economy to run. We cannot allow the terrorists to further destabalize the region and potentialy cut off the liquid that runs our society... It sucks for those countries in Africa who really need our humanitarian help but what do we get in return, not much...

JMO

[Clean97GTI]

Cuda, I understand that it is our duty to protect national interests. Oil is chief among them or close to it.
I just hate seeing the administration dance around it and lie about why we are sending our troops to fight and die.

[Pafrmu]

deleted.

[Cuda]

I just hate seeing the administration dance around it and lie about why we are sending our troops to fight and die.

I don't know the truth and any comment by me would only be Monday morning quarterbacking.. All I know is my son who is on his third tour is over in Iraq and regardless of why he's there it pi$$es me off when I hear negative comments... That's not directed towards you...

We all know politicians are full of ***** and tell only half the truth to keep us sheep in line. And like I said regardless of why we are there we need to take the restraints off the boys and girls and let them finish the job and come home...


C

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You don't see the US landing troops in Sudan or Rwanda to liberate the people there. What about freeing the people of Columbia from the violence of the cocaine cartels? To be quite honest, there is no profit in doing such things.The reason we haven't attacked Sudan or Rwanda or Columbia is because they do not represent a threat to our security. Afghanistan and Iraq both posed a threat to Americans living in America, and those threats were eliminated (as they should be).

Sudan and Rwanda and dozens of other places around the globe may indeed be miserable little hell-holes. But as long as they appear to lack the desire and means to kill thousands of Americans, we leave them alone.

As for oil... Here's a ranking of the world's largest oil fields:

1. Ghawar, Saudi Arabia 75-83 billion barrels
2. Burgan, Kuwait 66-72 billion barrels
2a. Cantarell, Mexico
(often listed as a large complex
of multiple smaller fields) 35 billion barrels
3. Bolivar Coastal, Venezuela 30-32 billion barrels
4. Safaniya-Khafji, Saudi Arabia/Neutral Zone 30 billion barrels
5. Rumaila, Iraq 20 billion barrels
6. Tengiz, Kazakstan 15-26 billion barrels
7. Ahwaz, Iran 17 billion barrels
8. Kirkuk, Iraq 16 billion barrels
9. Marun, Iran 16 billion barrels
10. Gachsaran, Iran 15 billion barrels
11. Aghajari, Iran 14 billion barrels
12. Samotlor, West Siberia, Russia 14-16 billion barrels
13.Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, USA 13 billion barrels
13a. Kashagan, Kazakhstan 13 billion barrels
14. Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia 12 billion barrels
15. Romashkino, Volga-Ural, Russia 12-14 billion barrels
16. Chicontepec, Mexico 12 billion barrels
17. Berri, Saudi Arabia 12 billion barrels
18. Zakum, Abu Dhabi, UAE 12 billion barrels
19. Manifa, Saudi Arabia 11 billion barrels
20. Faroozan-Marjan, Saudi Arabia/Iran 10 billion barrels
21. Marlim, Campos, Brazil 10-14 billion barrels

The astute will notice that Afghanistan doesn't appear anywhere on this list, and that Iraq is one of the smaller players. If these wars were really about conquering the world's oil fields (as the kneejerk Bush-haters always claim), then we would have attacked Saudi Arabia first. Iran would probably be second, although Kuwait, Mexico, and Venezuela are also tempting targets.

We didn't invade Saudia Arabia (or Iran or Mexico or Kuwait) for the same reason we didn't invade Sudan or Rwanda. This is about preserving national security, NOT about stealing the world's oil and NOT liberating the world's oppressed populations. The goal is to prevent the murder of another 3,000 American civillians.

There hasn't been another terrorist attack against America in some 5 years. Somebody must be doing something right. Rumsfield may (or may not) bear responsibility for this achievement. Either way, I fail to see why he "has got to go."

[cbsbyte]

Actually the whole adminstration needs to get booted. And I can't believe people are still blaming Clinton on our faliures in Iraq. That is the most moronic argument I have ever heard in my life. Bush and is adminstration got us in Iraq by trumping up faulty intelligence reports, not Clinton.

[Jeff Timm]

As usual people keep ignoring the alternatives.

Two choices:

Dump Saddam

Dump the United Nations.

Bush and the administration chose to Dump Saddam, that wouldn't have been my choice.

The weapons of Mass Destruction were there, we had to get international approval to remove the uranium. Oops! I forgot! The UN inspectors sealed that stuff, before they got tossed out of the country.

Now we are embarked on a great experiment. Can we build a peaceful Moslem country in the mid-east. Well it's cost us about $300 billion so far, not to mention a lot of good people I'd rather have alive.

But what are the alternatives. Nobody considers the alternatives.

Geoff
Who knows actions have consequences. :banghead:

[orionengnr]

+1

That was well researched, well organised, and well presented.
I may use it in the future, if you don't mind.

[RealGun]

Some of our best military leaders have chosen to retire rather than serve under Rumsfield. They are now, without fear
of pursecution, asking for his dismissal.
I think it is past time for him to go. - Bigjack

But you didn't say how this has anything to do with guns.

[Clean97GTI]

According to that list, Iraq has the worlds 5th and 8th largest oil fields...hardly a small time operation. There were supposed weapons of mass destruction there which we never actually found. Not surprising when the UN's own inspector said that they couldn't actually find them.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm
Iraq was really a broken country with no real links to terrorism or banned weapons. So, other than a dictator who violated UN sanctions (with the help of some of our allies) and generally didn't like the USA, what did Iraq have that the US needed to protect itself from? Well, lets go back to that list that shows Iraq holding the worlds 5th and 8th largest oil fields...yup, black gold that can supplement our supply sounds good. There were people there who were suffering under Saddam and we did free them. So, a cruel dictator who killed many of his own was removed from power and is being tried and we have a friendly government in oil-rich Iraq. Mission Accomplished :rolleyes:

The 9/11 hijackers were almost all Saudi nationals. Saudis have been connected and named in hearings and statements in Congress as having funded Al Qaeda and Hamas. The Saudi royalty and businesses are heavily vested in the US economy though. If they pulled out, it would be devastating to our economy. Seems to me that Saudi Arabia is a much greater threat to our National Security, but I guess oil is thicker than blood.
We don't attack SA because they supply a lot of our oil. Doesn't pay to bite the hand that feeds you even though the one on the other arm has no problem punching you.

Afghanistan was a little jerkwater wasteland of very little interest to the USA except for a couple things. First, Osama was reported to be there and it wouldn't look good to totally ignore that. Second, the government there was the worst type of fundamentalist trash around and we could improve the lives of those living there by removing the Taliban from power. Who did we place in power though? A former Unocal consultant...just in time to get a deal signed to lay a massive gas pipeline (owned by Unocal) through Afghanistan. So, a deal is secured, Afghanistan is still a jerkwater wasteland with fewer restrictions and...yeah, thats about it. Oh, the Taliban is still around and this is far from over for them.

While going to war to protect our national interests is fine, then please state thats why we are doing it. Don't lie to the American public and say Hussein has WMD's and is a threat. Its not true and never has been. How they dreamed up Afghanistan being a threat is beyond me. Terrorist training camps are easy enough to destroy. The camps aren't the problem, the ideals behind them are. You can't change hearts and minds by killing innocent people and ruining their lives. Thats exactly what worked against us in Vietnam. You can't build a house with a bulldozer. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in 5 years and thats all well and good. Can that be attributed to toppling Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe in Afghanistan. Freezing the assets of the terrorists probably helped a lot more than killing thousands of civilians in both countries.
Its a lot easier to push war on a populace when you can grease it with cheap oil.

[shermacman]

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal” - Bill Clinton, Meet the Press, February 17, 1998 ."

The entire world believed Saddam was a threat. Only George W. Bush had the courage to act on everyone else's cowardly fears.

[Lobotomy Boy]

The entire world believed Saddam was a threat.

It's starting to look like the entire world continued to believe this about Iraq because the Bush administration cherry picked and released information it knew to be questionable, to say the least. I don't call that courageous. I call it unprincipled.

[Clean97GTI]

Bush will be gone in 2 years.

I have little hope for the next president though. They are only getting worse and worse.

[xd9fan]

not soon enough:barf: George a veto......beuler....beuler...beuler

[gc70]

It's starting to look like the entire world continued to believe this about Iraq because the Bush administration cherry picked and released information it knew to be questionable, to say the least.Darn - that really makes me mad too! Isn't it galling to think that Bush took office, discovered that Clinton and the UN had been feeding the world information that was questionable, to say the least, and then had the nerve to keep right on doing the same despicable thing.

[Lobotomy Boy]

Good lord! How deep do you have to dig to blame this on, of all people, Bill Clinton? Did Clinton knowingly present information it knew to be unreliable, like Iraq seeking to buy yellow-cake uranium from Niger, or Sadam using mobile labs to manufacture WMDs, as evidence to support an ill-conceived war that has claimed thousands of U.S casualties? No. Did Bush do it? Yes. Without doubt. Even the administration itself no longer bothers to deny this.
And you have the nerve to try to blame Clinton for this? Talk about deranged hater syndrome!

[Clean97GTI]

I think Bush is one of the only (possibly THE only) president to admit breaking a law and has had almost nothing come of it.
http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0603/060310.htm

Kanye West would have been more correct to say George Bush doesn't care about American people.
Guess the 4th amendment is the next one subject to broad interpretation.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Good lord! How deep do you have to dig to blame this on, of all people, Bill Clinton? Did Clinton knowingly present information it knew to be unreliable..."I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski." Yup, Bill Clinton was an authority on telling the truth... :neener:

I believe the point he was trying to make was that the widespread beliefe in Iraq's WMD predates George W Bush. It predeates Bill Clinton, and George H W Bush, too.

Remembert Gulf War I? Remember all those Israeli citizens living in gas masks while Saddam lobbed scud missiles their way? Do you think those Israelies were afraid that Saddam, silly little prankster that he is, had stuffed his warheads full of stink bombs and laughing gas?

Was that all another part of the grand charade meant to trick the world into believeing that Saddam had WMD?

How about the 5,000 dead Kurds who, umm, err, all sucked on tailpipes and paint thinner cans and such all at the same time, so that it would look like Saddam had used chemical WMD on them. They all committed suicide to further the charade. Taking one for the team, so to speak.

And those UN weapons inspectors? They were called "weapons inspectors", but they weren't really searching for WMD, cause everybody knows Iraq never ever had any WMD. No siree! They were really just searching for the real killer in the OJ Simpson case. Or something...

Oh, and what about that time when the Izzies had to bomb Saddam's nuclear reactor, so that Saddam couldn't build any nukes? It was really an aspirin factory - they bombed it by mistake. Hey, it happens to the best of us.

All so that President George W Bush (ten years before he ran for president) could wage his war for oil (in two countries that don't have great big oil deposits). :scrutiny:

How deep do you have to dig to believe all that?

[shermacman]

Good lord! How deep do you have to dig to blame this on, of all people, Bill Clinton?

Read it again, LB:

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal” - Bill Clinton, Meet the Press, February 17, 1998 ."

Yeah, that Bill Clinton.

[Clean97GTI]

HTG, Hussein wasn't under UN sanctions during the first Gulf War. While I think they are nasty and should be destroyed altogether, Saddam had every right to own chemical weapons just as the US did.

and we knew darn well that he had chemical weapons...we had the receipts.
The Reagan administration helped with the development of chemical weapons while Iraq and Iran were at war. We helped Saddam against the Iranians because the Pro-US Shah had been deposed and the Ayatollah gave us a bloody nose during Carter's administration.

But thats not something Bush wants to talk about when his daddy was Reagan's VP and Rumsfeld went to Iraq to meet with Saddam and discuss the matter. Thats a great investment if you ask me. Give the dictator chemical weapons at our expense and then, 20 years later, go remove them at taxpayer expense (in both money and blood)

and you still underestimate the size of Iraq's oil deposits. Your own chart showed them to have the 5th and 8th largest deposits in the world. Thats a lot of oil mi amigo.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Wait! Wait! You mean Saddam really did have WMD?!?

Quick, somebody go warn the President! I bet he doesn't know!

:rolleyes:

Why do I bother anymore?

[bakert]

Best military leaders resigned rather than serve under Rumsfield??? Lord help us if these men were the best we had!!!:banghead:

[Lobotomy Boy]

Best military leaders resigned rather than serve under Rumsfield??? Lord help us if these men were the best we had!

Let's see, Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq, has just called for Rumsfeld to resign, joining Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005, former U.S. Central Command chief Anthony Zinni, former Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold. Are you saying that our military is run by people of poor character? I think you're confusing the Bush administration with the military.

[Clean97GTI]

Wait! Wait! You mean Saddam really did have WMD?!?

Quick, somebody go warn the President! I bet he doesn't know!

You may want to get your dates straight.
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
In the early 80's the US and Britain assisted Saddam Hussein with massive amounts of arms and money as well as development. In not so delicate terms, we gave him the weapons to assist in the war against Iran. This was when Iraq had been run out of Iranian territory and the Iranians were mounting an offensive against Iraq. Washington feared that Hussein's regime might even collapse. Reagan, Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld were some of the major players in this. Saddam uses chemical weapons against the Iranians.

fast forward to 1988
Saddam uses chemical weapons in several attacks against the Kurds. Kills several thousand of his own people. He is under no sanctions.

fast forward a little bit to the first Gulf War.
Saddam was under no sanctions and wasn't prohibited from owning any weapons. Saddam is defeated and sanctions are placed. A couple years later Oil for Food program introduced to help Iraqi citizens.

fast forward another ten years.
UN inspectors were back in Iraq and found *GASP* nothing. UN inspectors left and we had a nice little war. US inspectors searched anywhere they wanted and found *GASP* nothing! In other words, there were no WMD's in Iraq at the time. Hussein had apparently obeyed the sanctions. More claims were made about his connections to Al Qaeda but those were BS. Saddam (a secular leader)wouldn't want to be connected to a radical Muslim terrorist group that could use religious influence to remove him.

[CAnnoneer]

Rumsfeld is a machine, a micromanager. He does not make policy. He is told what needs to happen by his boss, and so he goes and figures out how to do it. Let's blame Rumsfeld to technical errors and GWB for policy errors. What is fair is fair.

I challenge all the president's men to come up with something better than:
1) Bill Clinton got a blowjob and lied about it, and so he is worse than GWB who cherry-picked the truth and got thousands of Americans killed, bankrupted the country, and is killing our liberties one by one
2) I like Rummie 'cause he is tough on them leftie journalists
3) Anybody who does not support GWB is a leftie, an incompetent, or a traitor

If only you knew who pathetic it makes you look...:rolleyes:

[ezypikns]

I do. We're fighting the same kind of war in Iraq that we tried to fight there. Iraq ain't Iowa. We're NOT going to turn that place into a democracy like we have here. We were RIGHT to go in there, but I think it's time to leave now. Just let them know if they misbehave we'll be back. And we'll be bringing another butt-kicking with us when we come. This is only my opinion. And we all know what we have besides one of those.

[spartacus2002]

I knew MG Swannack personally. You'd be hard pressed to find a better infantryman, soldier, or leader.

[Lobotomy Boy]

I knew MG Swannack personally. You'd be hard pressed to find a better infantryman, soldier, or leader.

Trying to smear the messenger is a typical tactic of this sleazy, corrupt, morally-bankrupt administration. They don't even need to come up with specific smears; they just make vague, damning allegations like:

Lord help us if these men were the best we had!!!

If this administration and its defenders get any more rotten, we'll be able to spot them by the maggots wriggling on their foul carcasses.

[MiGalley]

"Best military leaders resigned rather than serve under Rumsfield??? Lord help us if these men were the best we had!!!"

Amen.

Sadly, MANY excellent and wholly dedicated military leaders--exceptional individuals by any measure--go quietly and humbly, fading unoticed and unrecognized for their loyalty and years of service, while "the misguided few" receive unlimited face-time on the networks and in the press. Such has become the glide path for the transition from career military man to "X" News Consultant and corporate board advisor.

Has anyone taken the time to look up the current "retiring class" of O-whatevers in his USMA / USNA / USAFA yearbook?

Betcha dollars to doughnuts there's a pattern. ;)

I'm just sayin. . . .

(Good night, Chesty!)

Semper Fi

[gc70]

And you have the nerve to try to blame Clinton for this? Talk about deranged hater syndrome!Get a mirror and take a long hard look at someone consumed with hate.

Everyone (the UN, Clinton, Bush, etc.) was operating on questionable information about Iraq for many years.
Clinton responded to that questionable information by periodically tossing some cruise missiles at Iraq or ratcheting up activities over the no-fly zones.
Bush responded to that questionable information by launching a war to change the government in Iraq.

Bush certainly acted more vigorously and decisively than Clinton did to the questionable information about Iraq - no argument about that. But Bush and Clinton both had questionable information that they responded to militarily.

Blame Bush for the decision to go to war with Iraq - he deserves that credit. But screeching that Bush took office and suddenly invented all of the questionable information about Iraq is patently ridiculous.

[Lobotomy Boy]

Clinton responded to that questionable information by periodically tossing some cruise missiles at Iraq or ratcheting up activities over the no-fly zones.

What on earth makes you think I supported this? I do now support Clinton's decision to send missiles into Afghanistan. At the time I thought it was a smokescreen--everytime the man got in some trouble he lobbed a few missiles at someone. The events of 9/11 made it clear that at the very least he was justified bombing Afghanistan.

But Clinton never went before the American people information that credible people were telling him was wrong and using it as a pretext to invade a sovereign nation. True, he went before the nation and lied about his sexual midadventures, but lying in order to drag the nation into a bloody war of choice is a whole different kettle of fish, one that stinks worse than just about any other in U.S. history. It is far worse than lying about a tryst with another consenting adult.

But this thread is about Rumsfeld, so we both digress.

[Kodiaz]

What's wrong with hating Bush. He increased the deficit. He increased the size of govt. and gave power that violates the Bill of rights. He created DHS which is taking government waste to a whole new level. He's going to give 30 million socialists that are illiterate in their own language voting rights. And he's expanded entitlements(Medicare part D). I don't see what the problem is hating Bush. I hate Bush. He has done more damage to this country than the Russians could have ever hoped to do.

[Thin Black Line]

Who remembers Viet Nam?

I do. We're fighting the same kind of war in Iraq that we tried to fight there. Iraq ain't Iowa. We're NOT going to turn that place into a democracy like we have here. We were RIGHT to go in there, but I think it's time to leave now. Just let them know if they misbehave we'll be back. And we'll be bringing another butt-kicking with us when we come. This is only my opinion. And we all know what we have besides one of those.

I had friends older than I who served in vietnam. I am one of the soldiers
who served in Iraq who believe major changes need to be made with
how things are handled there and these changes need to start HERE AT
HOME. Don't even get me started on the pre-war intel thing because I was
in Iraq in 05 when most of this stuff came to light :fire: . The current
crop of chicken hawks can not even begin to imagine how damaging this
was to the morale of soldiers, and more importantly, their families. We're
not stupid and can see that those chanting the "stay the course" chorus
have never served a day in uniform and had a loved one deploy.

I, my fellow soldiers, and older veterans know that the military is to be
used to for "butt-kicking." We are not cops or carpenters to be used for
"nation building." Quite frankly, this sounds like a role dreamed up for us
by some meeting for one-world governance.

[Thin Black Line]

he believes that the role of the military does not include questioning the leadership

His oath as an Officer is to the Constitution. Soldiers are to serve
We the People, not We of the Party Currently in Power. :barf:

For starters, if you are going to take public office, you can't hold any stake in a company with government contracts. You must sell your stock. If a company you hold stock in gets a government contract while you're in office, you must sell it off.

To be fair, many previous admins have been incestuous with many of
the companies they formerly did business with, or seek to become a
part of in the future.

However, there are many questionable overlaps between high-level members
of this admin and the companies that are profiting most from this war. It's
not like they have their stock options posted on their personal website, but
this has been available to the media. You see very little "news" on this
because the people on BOTH sides of the aisle do the same thing and
therefore keep this kind of thing lo-profile --it's advantageous to them
both under a kind of mutally-assured-destruction understanding. A poster
on another thread regarding this country's leadership had mentioned that
we now have too many Americans aspiring to become "European Gentry."
Given that re-emerging and troubling return to that pre-Revolutionary
status quo in the US, one should recall that the gentry never outed even
adversarial fellow gentry in front of the peasants.....;)

Support and Defend the Constitution. PERIOD.

[MechAg94]

Kodiaz, I am not sure I really care if you hate Bush or anyone else, I just like to see posters say Why they hate them and state facts/reasons. "I hate Bush" by itself is a pointless post sort of like posting "I hate AR's, AK's are better". Okay, that's great, why? You did post some reasons so that is good. :)

Most of my complaints about Bush are regarding domestic issues and the budget. However, the alternative party (Democrats) had a golden opportunity to voice their opposition to the war in Iraq right before the 2002 mid-term elections. They chickened out and voted for it (all but a couple). Domesticly, the alternative party has proposed no better choices except more spending and less freedom. Bush may not be a great President, but the alternatives that could have been are much worse. I want to see those choices improve, but I am not sure it will without some changes in voters minds.

Bush will be gone in two years. Who will be your next president? Maybe you would better spend your energy trying to make sure the next guy is better. I haven't been too impressed by the candidates I see now.

[Leatherneck]

It's
not like they have their stock options posted on their personal website, but
this has been available to the media. Maybe not, but each medium-to-senior level government employee has to file an SF-450 statement of financial interests covering self, spouse and children and update it every year. It is reviewed by independent staff in the office of ethics (called by different names in different departments). Those reviewers counsel each official about potential conflicts of interest and recusal. Violators are subject to dismissal, and it's taken seriously.

Now the SecDef may be a bit different in this regard. Rumsfeld could officially recuse himself from any and all direct involvement with companies whose stock he owns and depend on his loyal minion Leatherneck to "do the right thing (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)" and avoid having his fingerprints on any deal advantageous to "his" company.

The only way to avoid that would be divestiture or at a minimum a blind trust.

TC

[shermacman]

Today, the Barking Moon Bats' new hero is Anthony Zinni, a US General, now retired.

Here is Zinni making the case for a US led invasion of Iraq, when he was an acting General, in 2000. For the chronologically challenged that would be during the reign of their hero, Billy Jeff Clinton:

Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD, oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) …

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5415

Of course, those with Bush Derangement Syndrome will only hear Zinni now that he has pulled a Jean Fraud Kerry flip flop.

[Shadizar]

If you actually listen to the various Generals speak you'll notice that most of them aren't arguing against being in Iraq. Their problem is with the way Rumsfeld has instituted a culture of incompotent leadership.

They say that Rumsfeld and the administration have fostered an atmosphere were sound military advice is not being followed or encouraged. I for one give a lot more weight to their opinions (on military matters) than Donald Rumsfeld or the Bush administration's press representatives. If you haven't actually listened to what these Generals have to say, you might want to take a moment to find out.

-Shadizar

[wingman]

Who remembers Viet Nam?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do. We're fighting the same kind of war in Iraq that we tried to fight there. Iraq ain't Iowa. We're NOT going to turn that place into a democracy like we have here. We were RIGHT to go in there, but I think it's time to leave now. Just let them know if they misbehave we'll be back. And we'll be bringing another butt-kicking with us when we come. This is only my opinion. And we all know what we have besides one of those.

Same here, when the military is required go in kill your opposition and leave,
no nation building.............
I voted for this administration and have been greatly disappointed, in my opinion history will give this one an F.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

If you haven't actually listened to what these Generals have to say, you might want to take a moment to find out.

Shadizar, I have been listening, and I can't figure out why they want him to go, other than they don't like his personality. I'd like to hear specifics. The only specific I've heard is,

1. He didn't go to Shinseki's retirement ceremony.

And everything else sounds like they generally don't like his personality. They want something, he wants something else and is the boss and tells everyone else to do that. So how is that unique?

The only piece of military criticism I've heard against him is the vague, he sent the military in unprepared for the insurgency after the war. My question is, did the generals actually tell him to bring more forces specifically for an insurgency, and then did he refuse? Because unless there was a chorus of generals who anticipating the insurgency and urging more troops to deal with it, then the generals are all just as short-sighted as Rummy.

So unless someone gives military specifics, the obvious conclusion to come to is that is an everyday military personality conflict that is only big news because the mainstream media is giving the disgruntled generals free face time to further their agenda of making Republicans look bad.

PS All this "the Bush administration is moronic/lied and is in it for the oil" stuff is completely off-topic and distracting on this topic. The topic is, why don't six generals like Rummy?

[cookekdjr]

I challenge all the president's men to come up with something better than:
1) Bill Clinton got a blowjob and lied about it, and so he is worse than GWB who cherry-picked the truth and got thousands of Americans killed, bankrupted the country, and is killing our liberties one by one
2) I like Rummie 'cause he is tough on them leftie journalists
3) Anybody who does not support GWB is a leftie, an incompetent, or a traitor

If only you knew who pathetic it makes you look...
+1

[Art Eatman]

this whole thrad looks pathetic...


Art