Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been making the rounds lately, saying that the United States deserves poor marks for how it is waging the "battle of ideas" with extremist groups like al-Qaida.
"If I were grading, I would say we probably deserve a D or a D-plus as a country," said Rumsfeld. Of course, he went on to blame the media and Congress.
Last we checked, Rumsfeld was one of the government officials most responsible for articulating America’s foreign policy. Given his abysmal grade on this and many other goals, why is he still on the job?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- KSGolfnut on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
28 Comments
I agree with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The nation does deserve a D or D+.
for electing george bush……who appointed Rumsfeld.
For allowing bush and Rumsfeld to remain in office the nation deserves an F.
An F for the US is far too generous. George Bush was reelected after all his crimes and folly during his first 4 years. Remember that Hitler was never democratically elected – he staged a political coup which he consolidated through repression. The rest of the world was astonished and dismayed by the reelection of Bush. Most of the US public is brainwashed and gripped by embarrassing jingoism. No appeal to patriotism is ever rejected no matter how crude or jingoistic – indeed critics of the criminal attack against Iraq were reviled for their lack of patriotism. With an electorate so nationlistic and ignorant the US is doomed to continue its March of Folly.
Rumsfeld, in his speeches, forgets to ask himself why exactly we’re losing this battle of ideas. If he were to think about it he may realize that reason is that all the Islamic fundamentalists that we’re fighting against believes the exact same thing. America is the way we are because we do not all agree on everything. Thusly, they are unified in their idealogy and approach and we are disunified. It is that disunity that makes us strong… America will never “win” a battle of ideas vs. a small religious sect because if we did we wouldn’t be America. As such, Rumsfeld’s D should be America’s A+
“George Bush was reelected after all his crimes and folly during his first 4 years“.Admitted prior to 9-11 of American Presidents G.W. Bush was one of them. Somewhat lackluster, he was elected mainly as a “other”, in that case the only qualification that was needed was he is a Republican. The knowledge of the crimes and folly did not come to light till after the invasion. Just prior to the election of 2004, but the majority did not pay attention either out of apathy or the dismissing the information as partisan politics.
“ The rest of the world was astonished and dismayed by the reelection of Bush.”I know the feeling.
“Most of the US public is brainwashed and gripped by embarrassing jingoism (patriotism).”.
But I do see some light at the end of that tunnel, more people are coming to grips with the deception that lead to Bush’s re-election. I said some time ago that the hardest thing this country will have to face will be the realization that the majority had been made a fool of.
“ No appeal to patriotism is ever rejected no matter how crude or jingoistic – indeed critics of the criminal attack against Iraq were reviled for their lack of patriotism.”I once worked for a man whom after giving his opinion on how something should be done would end the conversation with, “that would be the smart way to do it!”.Of course no one wanted to be thought of as being stupid, so you did it his way.The use of patriotism as a weapon is well used by the power that be.
“With an electorate so nationalistic and ignorant the US is doomed to continue its March of Folly.”Though not necessarily true, this country will have a long, hard, road ahead.First will be the awakening to the truth that the majority has been fool. That once the enemy within has been stopped, it will be some time before the country can be righted within much like after the Civil war. Then it will be some time before the damage done to the creditability of the United States can be re-established. I said it in another topic, that if the U.S. did go after Iran. Short of Israel no one would help, we are seen by the world like the boy who called wolf one to many times. Our credit has been ruined, our word is now questioned and the world is tired of “Gunslinger” diplomacy.
The amazing thing is that the person in charge finds a way to blame others for HIS failures. As Randy correctly points out “Rumsfeld was one of the government officials most responsible for articulating America’s foreign policy.” Failure clearly belongs with him.
As for “Given his abysmal grade on this and many other goals, why is he still on the job?” THAT is a perfect reflection of Rumsfield’s boss.
When I watched the news last night and it has came out that defense has ban privately purchase body armor! It floored me, if they had been doing the job as needed and providing the armor. No one would have to buy the armor themselves, the complain has been either none was provided or what was provide did not stop an AK round.The National guard were the worst provide for, second hand equipment or none.They are saving face with the blood and lives of those who serve.But of course, ”You go to war with the Army you have not the one you wish for!”.CHILD FROM A UNMARRIED COUPLE Rumsfield!
It’s always somebody else’s fault.
That’s what the “party of personal responsibility” does.
When Reagan ran the national debt through the roof, it was Congress’s fault. Nevermind that Reagan signed the spending bills and sent bills to Congress virtually identical to the ones he signed.
No WMD’s in Iraq? “Bad intelligence.”
Valerie Plame? “Leakers. We’ll never know who they are.”
Hurricane Katrina? “Act of God. Nothing we can do.”
No job growth for four years? “Clinton economy.”
9-11? “Clinton.”
Can’t capture Osama bin Forgotten? “Afghans.”
Ballooning national debt? “War on Terrorism.”
Journalists shot on-purpose by tanks? “It’s a war zone.”
Abu Ghraib torture scandal? “A few bad apples.”
Jack Abramoff? “Don’t know him. Never met him.”
Ken Lay (given the nickname “Kenny Boy” by Bush)? “Ditto.”
Maybe now that we have a new White House chief of staff we can at least hear some new spin and rhetoric, the old stuff is getting so boring.
IT’S ALL CLINTON’S FAULT!
I for one think that Rumsy is a great DOD Secretary. Maybe not the best the Nation could have got or the best in history, but none the less a good one.
I know practically everybody that is a regular on the WE blog would adimently disagree with me. I don’t have much to defend him or an excuse for some of the failures.
All I can say is that what I read and watch about Donald is all I know. And from what I know, he is a great, hardworking, and brilliant person regardless of political party persuasion he subscribes to. He has the best of intentions for all the soliders and he makes sure they get and recieve everything they need.
Although it seems slow to us that it took awhile to fully armourize our vechicles and soliders he got the job done, and in DOD procurement timescale, he got it done very quick, which is amazing. Usually DOD procurement for anything takes many years.
There is so many more examples of Donald stepping up to the plate and hitting homeruns for America that I think he is great. Could another DOD secretary done better? Maybe, but I don’t think so. Regardless of who is in, I believe we would be in the same if not worse situation.
Mcnamara was considered to be a very intelligent and around about way, a great DOD secretary during the Vietnam War, but lots of our guys died (maybe for nothing, that is up to debate)and public perception about him and the War was not good, even to the point that American Soldiers coming home was spit upon and called baby killers. You can’t do much worse than that.
I get my news about the War on Terror from this site: http://www.defendamerica.mil/That is to let you know that I’m not getting my information from some crazy, three-time divorcee, conservative talk-show host that some of you guys reference me to.
Isn’t that where Baghdad Bob got his new job? OF COURSE RUMMSFIELD TELLS YOU THAT HE IS A GREAT DOD! And if all you read are his press releases no wonder you don’t have an accurate picture.
There is no “war on terrorism” because there is no such thing as a “terrorist, it’s a made-up word, but there is an excuse to break the law: “we’re fighting terrorism.” To understand that, you’ll need an IQ above room temperature.
What are they Ed? Freedom Fighters?
The Military Press I would find to be much more accurate than the DailyKos or Newsweek or other presses that often get caught in lies.
An airman turned me on to the site that I listed. So I read it to get information. Is it just happy propaganda? You decide.
Everybody else just spew hate and reteric about him, because they have nothing on him expect that he is Bush’s buddy, that is all it takes to illegitimize him.
I mean Rumsy deserves critisim in the highest order. He should be watched like a hawk by the press. He is in a position that requires it. But for right now, I say he is pretty good. Not to say that I might change my mind once biography books about him come out. Those tend to change my mind. After reading Kennedy and Reagan’s biography, those guys are the worst Presidents ever in the moderen Presidency. I thought Nixon wasn’t that good, till I read his biography and come to the conclusion he was one of the best we had.
So you never know. Things end up being opposite after I learn more.
As to why Rumsfeld doesn’t get fired, here, once again, is why:
http://dickcheneyfanclub.com/photos/Rumsfeld-cheney1975.jpg
Yes it’s only a picture (remember the Kerry/Fonda crap?), but there’s nearly 40 years of history attached to it. When Dick met Rummy, W. wasn’t thinking about anything deeper than his shot glass.
Rage! That picture just proves experience. Both were working for the White House that time, and yes, they are back in.
Is it all about chummy and cronisim? You bet, all Administrations have it.
Ed, I call anyone who targets civilians a “terrorist.” As you can imagine, the list of offenders is quite long. . .
That’s right, Joe. I merely maintain it will be a frosty day in Hades when W. fires Dick’s friend. They are cronies both socially and financially and, if Dick decides to let W. fire his old friend, there will be hell to pay–even for him.
I’ll agree with you Rage. Cheney does run things.
Thing about Rumsfeld is that he was charged with changing the military, and both Democrats and Republicans agreed it needed to be changed. In 2000 Rumsfeld was appointed to Sec DoD and charged with maximizing a US military power, given modern technology, by maximizing the force that can be applied by an all-volunteer army. The Powell doctrine only works if the US draws down force levels in Europe and Asia *or* the US institutes a draft. There is no way to apply the Powell doctrine’s concomitant 500,000 US troops without a recommitment of force levels or new heads.
Where Rumsfeld went wrong is where Bush went wrong: President Bush decided to wage war in Iraq with too few troops *and* in the middle of this grand downsizing experiment being conducted by Rumsfeld at DoD.
I tend to agree with Joe: Rumsfeld was largely successful at changing the US military, beginning with its culture: an enormous and very important job *if* the US is determined to deny its military the sustenance a military draft would provide.
Rumsfeld, however, works for President Bush. He’s the guy who should be held responsible for Iraq and what’s happened to our army there. After all, President Bush could have used his vaunted political capital to get Rumsfeld help in the form of a military draft (given that Bush had already stupidly if happily screwed the pooch in European capitals), but he did not.
It’s not Rumsfeld who should go, it’s President Bush.
Flike! I agree with everything you said. Great post by the way. I also agree that it’s Bush that needs to go.
In 2000, I couldn’t believe that the Republicans choose him to be the candidate. From the begining I’ve been no Bush lover.
Rage – would your terrorist label include those who crush peace activists under a bulldozer? Or those who blow an airliner out of the sky with a missle?
Oh, Ed? About that “made-up” word?
“Whether the character of the times is justly portrayed or not, posterity will decide. But on one feature of them, they can never decide, the sensations excited in free yet firm minds by the terrorism of the day. None can conceive who did not witness them, and they were felt by one party only.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, June 15, 1813, excoriating his old friend for the tyrannical actions taken during the Adams presidency.The problem is not with the word, but its usage.
Yes, and yes, Ben. No exceptions.
Joe – I do not rely on DailyKos or any other SINGLE source for information. I especially would not rely SOLELY on the Ministry of Peace or its public information arm the Ministry of Truth. Instead, I look to various (often contradictory) sources and then attempt to sort it all out.
If the only source of information you have about Rumsfield is FROM Rumsfield how can it possibly be complete? And, other than the fact that it is internally consistent how do you know it is accurate? After all, didn’t Rumsy tell us all sorts of things about WMDs and being welcomed with flowers that didn’t exactly work out?
“Joe – I do not rely on DailyKos or any other SINGLE source for information. I especially would not rely SOLELY on the Ministry of Peace or its public information arm the Ministry of Truth. Instead, I look to various (often contradictory) sources and then attempt to sort it all out.”
My kinda guy, Ben! I’ve even linked to Fox News, when the factual information was something well known on the public record.
An article yesterday said that cheerleading stunts, such as high pyramids and male cheerleaders tossing female cheerleaders 20 feet in the air have been banned by the NCAA. So a lot of athletic guys are going to stop participating.
This article mentioned that George W. Bush was a male cheerleader at Yale, back when all he males did was yell in megaphones. (He was also on the baseball team, but reportedly wasn’t nearly as good as his dad, and allegedly warmed the pine.)
George is a great cheerleader now. But cheerleading doesn’t win the game, does it?
Rummy arming our possible ememies of tomorrow. This DA doesn’t learn from his mistakes.http://www.cjonline.com/stories/040106/opi_hightower.shtml