Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

RUMSFELD HAS GOT TO GO

Discussion in 'Legal' started by BIGJACK, Apr 13, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BIGJACK

    BIGJACK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    223
    Location:
    Alabama
    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:
     
  2. Camp David

    Camp David member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Location:
    VA
    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.
     
  3. DonP

    DonP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,294
    Location:
    Chicago area
    "Best"?

    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.
     
  4. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Kinda hard for the Secretary of Defense to call someone a domestic terrorist...especially when that person is your boss.
     
  5. Leatherneck

    Leatherneck Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    No. Virginia and Northern Neck
    Somebody please close the blinds; the moonbeams are bothering me. Thanks.

    TC
     
  6. Kingcreek

    Kingcreek Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,862
    Location:
    at the center of my own little universe
  7. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    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.
     
  8. Master Blaster

    Master Blaster Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,912
    Location:
    Delaware home of tax free shopping
    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
     
  9. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    The Taliban is on the comeback in Afghanistan.

    Rumsfeld has done nothing that will last there.
     
  10. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    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:
     
  11. seeker_two

    seeker_two Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,616
    Location:
    Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
    I think THAT particular coincidence is more due to Rumsfeld's direct supervisor (and his family's financial portfolio) than his own initiative... :cuss:
     
  12. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    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.
     
  13. Kingcreek

    Kingcreek Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,862
    Location:
    at the center of my own little universe
    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.
     
  14. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    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.
     
  15. Leatherneck

    Leatherneck Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    No. Virginia and Northern Neck
    What on earth does his divestiture of stock in Gilead--a non-DoD-oriented business--have to do with his performance as SecDef?

    TC
     
  16. CAnnoneer

    CAnnoneer Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    Los Angeles County, CA
    +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.
     
  17. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    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.
     
  18. Erebus

    Erebus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,374
    Location:
    North Central MA
    And I Am sure if he sold all his stock in Gilead everyone would leave him alone like they leave Cheney alone about Haliburton.
     
  19. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Well Erebus, people probably wouldn't leave him alone, but at least we'd be able to keep a handle on possible conflicting interests.
     
  20. Erebus

    Erebus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,374
    Location:
    North Central MA
    Now let me ask a question.

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

    You see conflict of interest I see coincidence.
     
  21. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Gilead owns it.

    There is a difference between production and patents.
     
  22. Kim

    Kim Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,488
    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:
     
  23. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,748
    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.
     
  24. Erebus

    Erebus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,374
    Location:
    North Central MA
    Exactly, if he owned stock or not they were going to buy it there.
     
  25. Kim

    Kim Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,488
    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:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page