Rumsfeld Tours Iraq, Celebrates Successe s

“-- "Led to these things" Is how that first line is supposed to read.”

“Can we send these fokkers to jail after they lose the election?”

“My next license plate will be made by Bush/Cheney.”

“... subcontracted to Haliburton Prison Industries for $500 per plate.”

“Send 'em to Abu Grabass Prison.”

“This week, two new reports on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal show that
Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld was negligent in failing to plan for post-war
Iraq and negligent in allowing an environment fostering the abuse scandal.
Despite the President's reliance on "fear and smear" tactics to distract us from
such issues, we will not be deceived.

Today, Senator Kerry reiterated his call for Secretary Rumsfeld to resign. I
have been calling for the Secretary to resign since November of 2003. The time
has come for American citizens to assert their power to remove him from office
by calling on their elected representatives to impeach Rumsfeld. Please join me
in this effort by signing this petition to impeach him here:

http://www.stoprumsfeld.com

As if Abu Ghraib and the failure of post-war planning wasn't enough, Secretary
Rumsfeld also deserves to be impeached because he perpetuated false premises
that America was in imminent danger of attack from weapons of mass destruction
and that Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda's September 11, 2001 attack.
He used funds appropriated for the action in Afghanistan to plan and develop the
invasion of Iraq. He ignored the recommendations of top military leaders and
sent American troops into war undermanned and under-equipped. He oversaw
military prison facilities that violated the Geneva Convention and U.S. law,
even after the Red Cross warned him of the violations, and then tried to cover
up such violations.

Rumsfeld has shamefully violated the public trust and the Constitution. His
behavior is what is truly meant by "high crimes and misdemeanors." That is why
I have introduced articles of impeachment (HR629)
[http://www.charlierangel.org/media/hr629.html] And why I ask you today to force
congressional Republicans to bring them to a vote by signing the petition at
http://www.stoprumsfeld.com.

With only 68 days until the election, broad participation and a rapid response
are essential to this effort. On September 22, I will submit this petition
into the Congressional record to show members of Congress that their
constituents support my articles of impeachment of Secretary Rumsfeld.

If each person who receives this message forwards it on to four friends, we will
be able send an overwhelming message to the Congress to take action on this
critical issue.

Sincerely,

Charles Rangel
Member of Congress”

“Why not just vote Bush out? seems that would be more effective. I wouldn't be too happy with Wofie in Rummies spot....”

“Incompetent, but stable leadership.

God knows we need to keep the dialogue focussed on vietnam, because Iraq is quite possibly going to be a bigger debacle.”

“Funny I don't hear that the 'liberal media' is ignoring all the good news any more.

It appears we've ceded large swaths of the country to the insurgents.

Come November 3rd, Bush will order a major escalation.”

“Anyone feel a draft?”

“And it's one, two, three what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn. Next stop is ole Iran.
And it's 5, 6, 7 open up the pearly gates.
Ain't no time to wonder why, whoopie we're all gonna die!”

“I'm surprised I haven't heard lotsa people singing that song”

“Come on all of you big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
Got himself in a terrible jam,
way down yonder in ole Iran.
So go ahead and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun!”

“"Incompetent, but stable leadership."
- Phaedrus



According to Marine Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, its not even that good:

"When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand what the consequences of that will be and not vacillate in the middle of something like that... Once you commit, you have to stay committed."

Sounds like the General is not all that impressed with Bush's decisive leadership.


General Anthony Zinni doesn't think Bush's flip-flops are all that helpful either:

"One thing you learn in this business is, don't say it unless you're going to do it... And if you say you are going to go in and wipe them out, you better do it. If you say you're going to do it and then you back off and find another solution, you have lost face."”

“Okay, I was trying to hedge my bets in the face of a miserable failure that a number of people here seem to be supporting as though he were the second coming of Jesus.

My bad.”

“I think the administration is holding back on hitting the trouble urban centers hard because of what it will do to PR gearing up for the elction.

You can bet if Bush is re-elected that his first move will be to hit Tikrit, Fallujah, Najaf and all the other "problem" areas with everything they have snf, ya know, bring "democracy" to Iraq.

The result will be tens of thousands of civilians killed.”

“I think you're right but it doesn't really hinge on re-election. November 3rd - Fallujah gets hammered.”

“Rumsfeld, others sued in Germany over Abu Ghraib abuse allegations

By Matt Surman
Associated Press

BERLIN — A group of American civil rights lawyers filed a criminal complaint in Germany on Tuesday, asking for an investigation of top U.S. officials including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and former CIA director George Tenet, saying they are responsible for acts of torture committed at Abu Ghraib.
[...]
The attorneys said that since the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court they could not take their case there, and chose Germany because it has legislation that allows for the prosecution of war crimes and human rights violations across national boundaries.
[...]
Those charged in the complaint include Rumsfeld, Tenet, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez — former commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq who is now stationed in Germany — as well as seven other Pentagon and military leaders.

The abuses “were clearly authorized at the highest levels” of the chain of command, attorney Peter Weiss said. It “goes considerably beyond the question of merely inhumane treatment.”
[...]”

“Leftist lawyers filing a law suite? GET OUT!! No way! When do they find time? I thought they were all in Cleveland filing for a recount before the first counts done? LOL!”

“CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait - After delivering a pep talk designed to energize troops preparing to head for Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld got a little “talking to” himself from disgruntled soldiers.
[...]
Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly three years after the war in Iraq.

“Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?” Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.
[...]

Full Story”

“If they repeat the question often enough, it gives him time to come up with a snappy comeback.”

“Even with the extra time, his answer was pretty stupid.”

“I'm surprised this happened. Usually at the town hall meetings and photo ops for the Prez and his poodles only certified BUIs are allowed to ask questions. Must have been a Secret Service gaff or some MP "kernal" will probably be forced to resign. I'd bet Army Spc. Thomas Wilson will be driving his Humvee back and forth to the Baghdad Airport a lot in the near future.
last edited: 12/08/04 3:45:16 PM”

“Yeah, it was obvious Rumsfeld was stalling to come up with an answer. I don't know why he just didn't say they are fixing the problem, because on the news, they said better vehicles are being shipped from all over the place to Iraq.”

“During WWII, we turned over all the automobile factories in Detroit to build planes and tanks. Who cared about making cars?

Now we fight a war that is almost totally removed from life here in the United States.

How long have we been reading stories about the lack of vehicle and personal body armor? It's been more than a year.

And a population of 300 million with a multitrillion dollar economy couldn't put a few pieces of thick steel and glass on a few thousand vehicles?

Come on.

They are fighting this war on the cheap with insufficient manpower.

If this is truly a war worth fighting, then let's go all the way. Let's eat the cost. Let's take the casualties. Let's bury the dead.

Of course, if it isn't worth it...”

“That soldier who asked Rumsfeld the question is probably in the brig now and is facing charges yet to be determined.”

“WASHINGTON -- Despite Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's assertion that the military is outfitting Humvees with armor as quickly as possible, the company providing the vehicles said it has been waiting since September for approval from the Pentagon to increase monthly production by as many as 100 of the all-terrain vehicles, intended to protect against roadside bombs in Iraq.

Army officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged yesterday that they have not approved new purchase orders for armored trucks, despite the company's readiness to produce more. They said the Pentagon has been debating how many more armored Humvees are needed.

Rumsfeld, questioned by soldiers in Kuwait on Wednesday who said they have had to pick through landfills for scrap metal to boost vehicle protection, said the Army was working as quickly at it could to get armored Humvees to the front. It is "a matter of physics, not a matter of money," Rumsfeld said, adding that the Army was "breaking its neck." President Bush yesterday reiterated that "the concerns expressed are being addressed."

But executives at Armor Holdings in Jacksonville, Fla., as well as Army officials and members of Congress, said Rumsfeld's assertion that the protective equipment is being provided as quickly as possible is not true and added the company has been waiting for more purchase orders.

"We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month," Robert Mecredy, head of Armor Holdings' aerospace and defense unit, said in a statement. The company is producing about 450 armored Humvees per month, up from 50 in late 2003, when a sudden surge of attacks in Iraq exposed a lack of protective armor.

The company says that by February it could be producing as many as 550 fully armored Humvees per month -- with armor plates on the sides, front, rear, top, and bottom -- if given the go-ahead. The company estimated it would cost the military about $150 million a year to pay for the additional 100 vehicles per month.

The company said it also told the Army it could add new production lines and turn out even more vehicles.

More than half of the roughly 1,200 US soldiers who have died in Iraq have been killed by roadside bombs or in ambushes from rocket-propelled grenades. A lack of armor on thousands of older vehicles has been blamed for many of the deaths.

continued...”

“I was hoping Rummy would step down. I don't like him. He seems to be a condescending snobby ba$tard.”

“And this is a problem, SS? Considering that 2,300 soldiers cheered at the top of their lungs, I would say that what the reporter did was in line with the wishes of the soldiers...”

“SS, so what if it was a planted question. Don't you think it was a good question to ask. Would you want to be riding in one with any armour..I don't think so”

“yeah SS....what's the problem? Did you read the part about how the reporter was denied access?

This problem is a disgrace. The wealthiest country in the world can't provide their soldiers with what they need.

The term obscene comes to mind too. While the boys and girls over there have to scrounge and do without, back home nobody but their families is sacrificing.

Haliburton sure got all they needed and then some more. Hmmmmm!?”

“New York Post
December 10, 2004

Ripping Rumsfeld, Wrongly


It was as compelling a piece of video as you'll ever see: A scout with the Ten nessee National Guard, whose unit is headed for Iraq, publicly berating Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld over his fellow soldiers' alleged lack of adequately armored vehicles.

What made the footage even more powerful was Rumsfeld's response: The normally unflappable secretary stood motionless momentarily, seemingly at a loss for words, before answering.

Rumsfeld responded with characteristic candor. "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," the secretary said during a town hall-type session with soldiers in an aircraft hanger in Kuwait.

It was red meat to the lions, who naturally ate it right up (while all but ignoring the context Rumsfeld offered).

It was a lead story on the network news broadcasts, and photos of the soldier and Rumsfeld dominated the top of the front page of The New York Times.

But there was a little bit more — and a whole lot less — to the story than what immediately met the eye.

For one thing, Rumsfeld was set up.

A reporter for the Chattanooga Times Free Press, who subsequently couldn't keep from chortling in an e-mail to his colleagues, had recruited a couple of soldiers to ask potentially embarrassing questions.

"I just had one of my best days as a journalist today," bragged Edward Lee Pitts, who was crowing over his success in finally publicizing a story "I've been trying to get . . . out for weeks."

Pitts is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team in Kuwait.

When he learned that Rumsfeld would be addressing troops at a town hall- style meeting at Camp Buehring — and that only soldiers would be allowed to ask questions — Pitts came up with a bit of journalistic subterfuge.

"I brought two [soldiers] along with me as my escorts," he wrote — and worked with them on how best to grill Rumsfeld.

Then, "I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question-and-answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd."

So what looked to the world like a soldier spontaneously voicing his beefs to the highest level of the military establishment turned out to be something else entirely: a meticulously arranged ambush.

"The great part," crowed Pitts, "was that after the event was over, the throng of national media following Rumsfeld . . . swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with."

When an officer from the unit asked Pitts what his story would say, according to the reporter, "I pointed at the horde of national media pointing cameras and mikes at the 278th guys and said he had bigger problems on his hands than the Chattanooga Times Free Press."

And, of course, that was true.

After all, how often does a secretary of defense confess in public to sending ill-equipped troops into harm's way — callously and with malice aforethought?

Except Rumsfeld did no such thing.

That is, he made no such confession.

And he — and the U.S. Army — showed no such "malice" in the first place.

The soldier, Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked why he and his buddies were being sent into Iraq aboard what he termed inadequately armored vehicles.

War, of course, is an inherently risky business, a fact Rumsfeld underscored: "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank," he responded, "and a tank can still be blown up."

Nobody — least of all Rumsfeld — has denied that some troops have been sent into Iraq with less-than-optimal equipment. The issue was thoroughly debated during this year's presidential campaign — and no doubt President Bush was damaged politically because of it.

But the most vociferous critics — Sen. John Kerry foremost among them — would not have been satisfied with all the armor in the world: They were against the war, pure and simple, and they viewed the equipment issue as a tool with which to damage Bush.

Those who believe Operation Iraqi Freedom to have been an essential engagement in the larger War on Terror are correct to be worried about armor.

We certainly are.

Yet we also understand that all the armor in the world wasn't available. The Army had been designed and equipped to fight an entirely different sort of conflict than what it has encountered in Iraq.

Meanwhile, armor and related equipment is being produced, distributed and installed as quickly as possible.

Some 18 months ago, it was deemed necessary to move against Saddam Hussein — which brings the discussion back to where Donald Rumsfeld began it: "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

The Chattanooga Times Free Press did the nation no service by reducing this debate to a gotcha-game played in the Kuwaiti desert — and the liberal media are compounding the damage by distorting what it was that Rumsfeld said.

At the end of the day, soldiers need to make do with what they have.

So it has always been.”

“They had a news story on in the Chicago news the other day after this crap surfaced of a wife that has maxed out 2 credit cards to buy her husband who is serving the proper gear. Combat flack jacket, boots, motorola 2 way radios...

I wonder who is supporting our troops more, the government that sent them there or their families?”

“Reuters.com
December 9, 2004

Rumsfeld Bests Critics To Steer Same Course In Iraq

By Carol Giacomo, Reuters

WASHINGTON - U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is under fire from U.S. troops in Iraq but has bested conservative critics at home to reinforce the message that U.S. Iraq policy is on a correct course.

Critics from the neo-conservative faction in the Republican Party had wanted Rumsfeld's head but lost out because there was no good alternative and because America was at war, officials and analysts say.

"We're a nation at war and he's the right man for the job. The president didn't want to change horse in midstream. He's happy with the job he has done," a White House official said.

Less than a week after President George W. Bush announced he would keep Rumsfeld in his second term Cabinet, the outspoken 72-year-old Pentagon chief reprised his role as a lightening rod for critics of the war.

At a military staging area in Kuwait on Wednesday, Rumsfeld told troops to ignore doubters who say the Iraq conflict, which killed more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers, is a losing venture.

Challenged to explain why troops must scavenge parts to armor their vehicles, Rumsfeld replied: "You go to war with the Army you have ... not the Army you might ... wish to have at a later time." Democrats immediately slammed his comments.

Soon after Bush's Nov. 2 re-election, the idea that Secretary of State Colin Powell, Rumsfeld's moderate rival, would go and Rumsfeld would stay was not assumed.

Rumsfeld was under fire for botched post-war planning in Iraq and abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib jail.

"What remains to be done is to announce new leadership for the Department of Defense," neo-conservative editor William Kristol wrote recently in the Weekly Standard.

"This surely should be an opportunity for a strong, Bush Doctrine-supporting outsider, someone who of course would be a team player, but someone who could also work with the military and broaden support for the president's policy," he said, suggesting Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani as possibilities.

Republican critics, including neo-conservatives who back a vigorous projection of U.S. power, faulted Rumsfeld for not putting enough troops in Iraq. Some said he had to fight to keep his job.

Mary Matalin, unofficial adviser to Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, said the vice president did not have to make a big push to save Rumsfeld's job.

Rumsfeld, Cheney's former mentor, is a "visionary leader who is loyal, committed and on the same wavelength as the president. He's steady, solid, a very deep thinker and the president likes him," she told Reuters.

Military analyst Anthony Cordesman said Rumsfeld was retained because no better alternative candidate emerged.

But "he frankly has done about as well as anybody can in the military sense," said Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

In addition to Rumsfeld, deputies Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith -- both controversial advocates of the Iraq war -- are expected to stay on, although Feith's congressional adversaries still want him out.

Critics like Ivo Daalder, a former Clinton administration official, say if Rumsfeld was not reappointed "this would be perceived as an admission of failure, that somehow (Bush) had made a mistake" in Iraq.

Richard Perle, an influential Republican thinker close to Rumsfeld, said Washington's "single grand strategic error" was allowing the "liberation of Iraq to become an occupation".

He said this was not Rumsfeld's fault but that of the State Department and the CIA, which opposed appointment of a pre-war Iraqi government in exile and was slow to hand over power to Iraqis after Saddam Hussein's ouster.”

“The President himself said it was a question he would want answered if he were serving.

Soldiers are dying because Rumsfeld wants to prove you can win a war on the cheap. His "so what" response shows what a scumbag he is. The folks at Armor Holdings just proved that he is a lying sack of #&%!$ too.

For the good of our armed forces, the guy needs to go.”

“SS,does that mean you would ride and down the road in a truck with no armour protection.

I tend to disagree that is was of no service. I think it was good for the American people to know that their family members are being put to even more risk by the army not having the proper equipment there.”

““New York Post
December 10, 2004

Ripping Rumsfeld, Wrongly


Rupert Murdoch as your source? lmfao!!!”

“I guess you use CBS & Dan? LOL”

“SS, you still haven't posted your opinion. You doing nothing but copy and paste.

Come on troublemaker post your opinion”

“No, Stove. My opinion was based on the reactions of the soldiers, not slanted news...”

“I think his opinion is obvious: It's OK to send our troops into a war of choice without the proper equipment and then lie about efforts taken to equip them.

SS doesn't 'support the troops', he supports the administration, right or wrong.”

“Besides, The Post is a trash tabloid. I see it on the stands every morning. Most headlines read something like this, "Child Trapped in Refrigerator: Sanitation Department Throws Him Out With Trash"”

“Looks like Stovestomper has replaced old Stratdewd. What do you think SS?”

“I'm about as right as you can get and still be sain and even I think it's a fair question.”

“God, you libs are easy to troll! LOL”

“see SS is nothing but a troublemaker...ban him”

“That's not fair, Stovie. you picked Rumsfeld as subject matter. There's not too many in this admin beside George and Dick that are this easy to hate! :)”

“Y'all paid your MoveOn dues yet?”