Rumsfeld - This is really disgusting!

[The Galatian]

I do notice that the Swift Boat Veterans who didn't sign on to the GOP-coordinated group claim that guys like Thurlow and O'Neill are liars. It's not hard to figure out why.

O'Neill finally admitted that he never actually served with Kerry, but he accused Kerry of falsifying a report. He says it's Kerry's report, citing Kerry's initials on it. Except the initials are "KWJ".

Thurlow accepted a bronze star for his action in the firefight he now says never occured. His own chief says that Thurlow fell overboard when the shooting started, and his contribution to the fight was being rescued.

And best of all, one of O'Neill's guys claimed to that Kerry was lying, because he treated his wounds. Unfortunately, for him, the Navy keeps records for a long time. Someone else did it and signed the report. Now, he says he might be wrong.

There's more. Do you need more?

And as far as the troops voting, they are voting with their feet. They are leaving in great numbers, because they don't want to be in Rumsfeld's army. We'd be in a fix if we couldn't force them to stay.

They cheered when one of their own reamed Rumsfeld out for failing to provide adequate equipment. What do you suppose they think of him lying to them about his reasons for doing it?

As you can see, it's not just the grunts. Generals and other senior officers have similar complaints, although the word is out that any honesty in that area will be met with retaliation by the administration.

The American people have lost confidence in Rumsfeld, because he's bungled the war and lied about it.

It's time for him to go.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Have you seen the testimony of the POW's? Are you saying they are all lying? Your guy (Kerry) is a liar and a traitor.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[The Galatian]

The POW I've heard talking about it says that Bush's Swift Boat guys were "dishonest and dishonorable."

That sums it up nicely.

Senator McCain, although a republican, who supported Bush for president, has praise for Kerry's record in the Vietnam conflict.

None of that really has anything to do with the fact that Rumsfeld sent our troops into battle with fewer men and less equipment than his chief of staff told him was needed for the job.

And a lot of American soldiers died before Rumsfeld got the message.

And then he stood in front of our troops and lied to them about it.

How can you, as a veteran, defend someone like that?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Have you seen the testimony of these highly decorated POW's:

http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/watch-video.asp

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I have never claimed to be a veteran. I am not one. But, I defend Rumsfeld because the generals and commanders on the ground who know what they are talking about defend him.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian, regarding Rumsfeld lying to the troops:
How can you, as a veteran, defend someone like that?

I have never claimed to be a veteran. I am not one.

My bad. And yes, that makes your position more understandable.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

It is also the position of the generals on the ground in Iraq that they have recieved everything they have asked for.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[The Galatian]

It is also the position of the generals on the ground in Iraq that they have recieved everything they have asked for.

You mean the guys who depend on Rumsfeld for their next promotion agree with him?

Amazing.

But his own Chief of Staff told him that his preparations and projected troop numbers were inadequate.

And they were. Now he's increasing troop levels as he was told.

Too late to save a lot of lives, though. But he says that soldiers are "fungible." Lose one, plug another one in.

Easy.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I mean people like Franks who is now retired and is in no way under any obligation to Rumsfeld. But, there are others as well. Are you saying that the Generals on the ground are lying too? Wow. It seems that according to you, anyone who supports Rumsfeld is lying and anyone who criticizes him is noble.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[The Galatian]

Face it. His own chief of staff told him that he wasn't sending enough troops. And now, Rumsfeld is sending more troops.

He was told that all of the troops should have adequate body armor and armored vehicles.

And now, belatedly, he's providing it. But a lot of our people would still be alive if his learning curve was a little better.

Whether he was right or wrong is settled. Even Rumsfeld is now doing what he was told would be necessary from the beginning.

 

[KenH]

Well, Rumsfeld's boss is President. On November 2, the majority of the American voters stated they were satisfied with the decisions that President Bush and his advisers have made.

If you don't like them, then you'll have to wait four years before you can express your displeasure at the ballot box again.

All you and the anti-war folks are doing now is carping with no ability to change the policies.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

1. The generals on the ground say they have recieved everything they have asked for.

2. Go back to page 7 for a refutation of the claims about armour.

3. Bush won. Your guy lost. The American people, including the troops in Iraq (by a 4-1 margin) have spoken their vote of confidence for Bush and his cabinet, including Rumsfeld. There is no Vietnam happening here. The only ones unhappy are the anti-war folks. They, how ever don't speak for (or get to speak for) 52% of America and the 4-1 margin of troops for Bush. We have spoken. We are happy. Try again in 08.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[The Galatian]

If you really want Bush to succeed, you should want him to remove Rumsfeld. The public understands that Rumsfeld messed up, and they know he lied about it.

And Bush's approval rate is sinking. If he would step up and get rid of Rumsfeld, it would increase people's estimate of him.

As you know, there have been many, many documentations of Rumsfeld's failure to provide adequate protection for the troops. We even had a republican congressman sponsoring a bill to pay back family members who had to pay for body armor for their soldiers out of their own pockets.

That's inexcusable. And all the denial in the world won't change it.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Sorry Galatian,

But, I don't think I will take political advice to "help" Bush from somebody who has spent the last year and a half trying to smear him and defeat him. I stand behind Bush and his SOD. Your guy lost. My guy won even though he ignored people like you.

As you know, there has been refutations of those accusations against Rumsfeld posted right here on this very thread. Just because your side (anti-war crowd) makes an accusation doesn't make it so, just like Kerry's WSI.

Rumsfeld has given the generals on the ground everything they have asked for and all the denial in the world won't change that.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[The Galatian]

But, I don't think I will take political advice to "help" Bush from somebody who has spent the last year and a half trying to smear him and defeat him.

As I said, I have no problem with Bush taking a political beating for keeping Rumsfeld on. But this is more important than a political squabble. Rumsfeld is now jeopardizing American lives and the outcome of the war in Iraq.

I stand behind Bush and his SOD.

Most Americans don't. It's time for him to go. Last Gallup poll showed only 36% of Americans think Rumsfeld should stay.

Your guy lost. My guy won even though he ignored people like you.

Winning elections is one thing. But we're talking about the real world now. Marketing strategies aren't going to win the war. We need a president who can do more than run a good political campaign.

As you know, there has been refutations of those accusations against Rumsfeld posted right here on this very thread.

You denied what happened. But in fact, you and everyone else know that Rumsfeld neglected to provide necessary body armor for many troops, and failed to provide armored vehicles in places were they were needed. And he lied to the troops about why he didn't do it. Would you like to see the evidence, again?

Just because your side (anti-war crowd) makes an accusation doesn't make it so, just like Kerry's WSI.

It's time to put aside your political biases, and think about the war. We could lose it, the same way we lost Vietnam, if the public loses confidence in it. And they've already lost confidence in Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld has given the generals on the ground everything they have asked for and all the denial in the world won't change that.

Chanting that mantra won't help you. Fact is, Rumsfeld is now belatedly doing exactly what the generals told him was necessary. It's a pity that he didn't have the sense to realize it before a lot of American troops died.

He's lost the respect of the troops and his commanders. He's lost the confidence of the American public.

Yet with the latest armor uproar, the Pentagon chief, who seems to flit to controversy like a moth to a porch light, has managed to alienate not only some senior Republicans but, increasingly, military members who blame him for faulty decisions on the Iraq war that are now costing US lives. In the long run, it is a lack of faith within the military establishment - from ordinary troops to US commanders - that could prove the most serious threat to Rumsfeld's tenure. Indeed, if conditions in Iraq continue to worsen, and key military constituencies lose confidence in Rumsfeld, he could become practically ineffective.
http://csmonitor.com/2004/1220/p01s01-uspo.html

For the good of the country, and to make sure we win the war, he needs to step down.

[ December 29, 2004, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by KenH:
Well, Rumsfeld's boss is President. On November 2, the majority of the American voters stated they were satisfied with the decisions that President Bush and his advisers have made.

If you don't like them, then you'll have to wait four years before you can express your displeasure at the ballot box again.

All you and the anti-war folks are doing now is carping with no ability to change the policies.

Yep. You and millions of others endorsed the policies of status quo abortion, endless warfare, and financial destruction. Thanks.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But, I don't think I will take political advice to "help" Bush from somebody who has spent the last year and a half trying to smear him and defeat him.

As I said, I have no problem with Bush taking a political beating for keeping Rumsfeld on. But this is more important than a political squabble. </font>[/QUOTE]Nothing is more important to you than a political squabble. Your side lost. The military voted 4-1 for Bush and his cabinet. The generals on the ground are satisfied. The troops are satisfied. Polls change on a dime here in America. We are satisfied with the leadership of Bush and his cabinet. Try again in 08.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[The Galatian]

(Barbarian suggests that winning the war is more important than a political squabble)

Nothing is more important to you than a political squabble.

It wouldn't be a Joseph post without a dishonest misrepresentation, would it?

Your side lost.

In this case, you should be on America's side. Set your political agenda down for a moment,and think what is best for the country.

The military voted 4-1 for Bush and his cabinet.

You've been misled. No one votes for a cabinet. And the American people clearly want Rumsfeld to go.

The generals on the ground are satisfied.

They saw what happened to the Chief of Staff when he dared to disagree with Rumsfeld. No dissent is tolerated.

The troops are satisfied.

That's why they cheered and applauded when one of them reamed out Rumsfeld for not giving them the means to do their jobs?

Polls change on a dime here in America.

Thirty-six percent of Americans think Rumsfeld should stay. Most of them want him gone. That's not going to change, unless he changes.

We are satisfied with the leadership of Bush and his cabinet.

Maybe you are, but America isn't. Bush can recover, of course, but he has to get serious about winning the war.

And the first step is a Secretary of Defense who can do it.

 

[OldRegular]

Galatian

Your needle is tracking the same nonsensical groove. Smarten up! Most of the negative info on this thread about Rumsfeld is patently false. Face it! Bush won and you are using Rumsfeld as a whipping boy!

 

[poncho]

One thing can be said for Donald Rumsfeld. He is consistant. He made the same claims about the Soviet Union in 1976 that he made about Iraq more recently. The CIA disagreed of course, just because they actually had evidence. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Talk about a broken record, Rumsfeld has been using the same speech for the last 28 years.