Rumsfeld is Resigning!!!! - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #46 11-09-2006, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

I agree with this, definitely. His management style was to micromanage in areas that he wasn't qualified, and to surround himself with people who would just shut up and tow the line. He was intent on bringing the JCS to heel and driving his vision of what the 21st century military should look like. His assumptions were dead wrong, and he didn't have the people in place to challenge the assumptions and force them to consider anything other than the best-case scenarios that he based his decisions on.

I think his ultimate failure was that he was prepared to let his ego triumph over reason. He let his ego get in the way of making the best decisions for the military.

It still think it is the system we have. Problem is that the Sec Def is a civilian. As such, the military was, is and probably will be controlled by civilians. All the way from what they buy and how much of it to the way they fight. The military should be controlled by civilians. HOWEVER, not micromanaged. How many of you would take kindly to being say a gardener and told what tools to buy and how many of each, how to dig and where and when to dig, etc, etc? As the gardener, I have the option of handing you the implements and saying "I quit. You do the job yourself." While I stand over my techs that work on the car, I don't bother them in that manner. I don't tell them to use a 10mm socket on a 3/8 ratchet instead of a 1/ ratchet, etc, etc. I also don't tell them how many wrenches to buy or what brand. If it deviates too much from the book, I would like to know why but other than that, I don't micromanage them. I do this because I have had techs run loose and do sloppy jobs. Brake fluid flush and coolant flush comes to mind where they would just change the fluid in the bottle or radiator and not flush the complete system.

aklim · #47 11-09-2006, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

Well, perhaps "pointless" wasn't the correct word. Perhaps the phrase "politically cynical" would be more appropriate. If Rummy was deemed ineffective by the Bush administration, when was this determination made? Just this week? A year ago? If the latter, why wait until after the fall elections to jettison him?

If the Republicans had a successful mid-term election, would Donald Rumsfeld still have a job and substantial influence on the conduct of the Iraq situation today? If the answer is yes, you have to question whether the motive to fire him was based on the quality of his leadership/management, or just a transparent gesture to appease political adversaries who have just become powerful enough to eat W's lunch during 2007+.

I think he was already done in the recent times. If it was 2 yrs ago, they would have dumped him. However, if it was 6 months ago, it would be difficult so they kept him on till after the elections. After which, no matter which way it went, they would have dumped his ass.

GermanStar · #48 11-09-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

I understand your point, but it would appear that long-standing dissatisfaction in Rumsfeld's performance was not limited to those outside the White House gates. See the quote in Dculkin's last post.

I didn't take anything from your post personally, no offense taken. I haven't been chortling about the election or Rumsfeld's change in status, I'm just skeptical and more than a little cynical about the White House's stated motives for his departure.

I don't think it has anything to do with GW's perception of Rumsfeld's job performance or ability (or lack thereof). It's about perception by the public and the troops. That's what I heard GW say (didn't I?) and I believe him.

#49 11-09-2006, 06:26 PM

What bothers me is his resignation was pure 100% political horsecrap, they know he was tired years ago but "stayed the course" and more good men got killed. I have argued with my political cohorts about this here and in real life; remember the vehicle armor issue and Rumsfelds snide remark? Remember the people here at MBshop defending him because it was a logistic problem and not Rumsfelds problem? After the public outcry they got the armor they needed didn't they?

Now despite the million dollar guided bombs I know a Marine that is cruising around the Euphrates without maps.

Yea Rumsfeld did a fine job..................for me to poop on.

Good riddance to the egomaniac political whore.

GermanStar · #50 11-09-2006, 06:39 PM

But are all these failures really on Rumsfeld, or was he just doing his masters' bidding? I really have no idea, but my feeling is the latter.

A264172 · #51 11-09-2006, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

But are all these failures really on Rumsfeld, or was he just doing his masters' bidding? I really have no idea, but my feeling is the latter.

From what I have heard, his master, whomever that may be, asked for a way to get rid of Sadam. And what we got, is what Rummy gave him.
Rummy picked and chose the plan, rejected documented advice, and if he felt there was a problem, he had the oppourtunity to say so. Maybe his master said "Don, I know you think we can't win this thing, but I need you to prosecute it anyway." but I doubt it.

GermanStar · #52 11-09-2006, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A264172

From what I have heard, his master, whomever that may be, asked for a way to get rid of Sadam. And what we got, is what Rummy gave him.
Rummy picked and chose the plan, rejected documented advice, and if he felt there was a problem, he had the oppourtunity to say so. Maybe his master said "Don, I know you think we can't win this thing, but I need you to prosecute it anyway." but I doubt it.

Or maybe Rumsfeld was little more than a mouthpiece for the Defense Secretary for Bush I. I'm not saying one way or the other, I don't know...

#53 11-09-2006, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Or maybe Rumsfeld was little more than a mouthpiece for the Defense Secretary for Bush I. I'm not saying one way or the other, I don't know...

Cheney would have listened to Powell. Personally I think Rumsfeld had some dirt and cashed in the political chips for the position.

t walgamuth · #54 11-09-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MedMech

Cheney would have listened to Powell. Personally I think Rumsfeld had some dirt and cashed in the political chips for the position.

i dont think cheney would listen to powell. powell didnt have enough money and so cheney didnt respect him.

just my competely undocumented opinion.

tom w

t walgamuth · #55 11-09-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I think he was already done in the recent times. If it was 2 yrs ago, they would have dumped him. However, if it was 6 months ago, it would be difficult so they kept him on till after the elections. After which, no matter which way it went, they would have dumped his ass.

yep. i think you have it about right. the election strategy was to say things were going a lot better than most folks thought, so dumping rummey then would be contradictory. i had noticed that for about the last year he hadnt been saying much.

tom w

A264172 · #56 11-09-2006, 07:49 PM

I guess I don't know who's idea it was to 'roll', for sure, either. But wasn't it supposed to be Donald's job to orchistrate the rolling? Something's got to roll thats for sure. Wer'e still left with the same hard choices. 'Winning', if there is such a thing, will not be pleasant, but might be necessary. If this is to be done it would have been better to do it that way from day one.

jlomon · #57 11-09-2006, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

Well, perhaps "pointless" wasn't the correct word. Perhaps the phrase "politically cynical" would be more appropriate. If Rummy was deemed ineffective by the Bush administration, when was this determination made? Just this week? A year ago? If the latter, why wait until after the fall elections to jettison him?

If the Republicans had a successful mid-term election, would Donald Rumsfeld still have a job and substantial influence on the conduct of the Iraq situation today? If the answer is yes, you have to question whether the motive to fire him was based on the quality of his leadership/management, or just a transparent gesture to appease political adversaries who have just become powerful enough to eat W's lunch during 2007+.

I agree with this, too. It is politically cynical. Also politically expedient. Apparently there had been significant rumblings from many different areas of the administration to jettison Rumsfeld after the 2004 election in order to bring out some fresh leadership, the same way that Powell was run out of town. From what I've read it was Cheney that vetoed replacing Rumsfeld at that time. It was felt that, even if he might have to go, it would telegraph a message of weakness/error on Iraq policy if they were to fire the Secretary of Defence in the middle of a war, which would cause problems for the administration. So Rummy stays, not for the good of the country or military, but for the good of Bush.

If the GOP kept Congress, you'd still have Rummy. He's the sacrificial lamb that Bush is offering to the Dems right now. Of course, by throwing him into the lion's den (where he will undoubtedly have Wolfowitz and Feith for company) right now gives Congress enough time to finish with him in time for a presidential pardon sometime in January 2009.

How is that for cynical?

Botnst · #58 11-09-2006, 10:25 PM

By personalizing the war through vilification of Rumsfeld and laying blame almost exclusively at Rumsfeld's feet, the Democrats unwittingly gave Bush a way to continue the WOT. Up until just a day or so before the election Bush publicly gave is undying love and affection to Rumsfeld for Rumsfeld's steadfastness. This made EVERYBODY believe that Rumsfeld would be among the last men standing. The Democrat initiative became totally dependent on Rumsfeld continuing to be the focus of their nastiness.

Bush accepted Rumsfeld's resignation BEFORE the Democrats could mount an effective campaign against him. The Demos will still hold hearings but to most people it will appear to be beating a dead horse. Only the most ardent partisans will give a *****. Most people will say, "I think Bush already fired the guy, what are these Democrats going-on about now?"

Additionally, by designating a replacement immediately after the election he will be able to claim that he (Bush) had already made the replacement decision, win or lose. This keeps it from appearing to be a result of his party's being trounced in the polls.

Also, having had Allen work as a leading member with the highly respectable bipartisan group looking into the Iraq imbroglio, the chances are that Allen will avoid a contentious senate grilling. Instead, the senators will focus on the results of the Iraq war committee and how Allen will implement the bipartisan recommendations.

Finally, the new Democrats are not the partisan assh*les of their old-time congressional colleagues. They will have come from weak seats that Repos barely held. This means that a Demo could easily lose the seats if the Demo becomes too partisan. The Demos will want to hold the seats more than they will want to hold impeachment hearings so there will be lots of sound and fury but little substantive.

Remember that there are sufficient Repos and moderate Democrats (think Leiberman) that the chances of overriding a presidential veto will be almost impossible.

The real question that should be on folks' minds is not whether impeachment will be forthcoming. The important issue is not whether or not Bush got the message from the electorate. The really important question is whether Allen can pull a rabbit out of his hat that will continue to keep terrorists from perpetrating murder on US soil while taking a new and more productive direction in the WOT in Iraq and Afghanistan.

B

PS is anybody else tired of trying to remember how to spell Afghanistan?

A264172 · #59 11-09-2006, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

...while taking a new and more productive direction in the WOT in Iraq and Afghanistan.

B

PS is anybody else tired of trying to remember how to spell Afghanistan?

If anybody had a clue what that might be, and would state it, it would be a pretty good start. It would be hard for the Democrats to oppose a serious proposal to bring about an exit from Iraq (even if it meant expanding the war) on the grounds that they would appear weak and loose their newfound position. I'm not even going to mention that other place... until the post Iranian phase.

t walgamuth · #60 11-09-2006, 11:31 PM

perhaps bush will now say that the war was all rummy's fault. and can now move on and get us out and leave rummy to take the fall for the war.

so bush looks wise and responsive to the voters.

and everybody is happy except rummy who just was doing his bosses bidding (i suspect) and the die hard war backers.

the oldest game in the world is a pol saying he supports his man 100%.....right before he cans him.

tom w