In Defense Of Rummy...

[Nbadan]

Your doing a heck of a job, Rummy!

Bush Speaks Out for Rumsfeld
'My Full Support' For Defense Chief
By Peter Baker and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 15, 2006; Page A01

President Bush interrupted his Easter vacation yesterday to offer an unequivocal vote of confidence in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in a move aimed at countering a growing wave of criticism from retired generals calling for the Pentagon chief to resign over his leadership of the Iraq war.

In an unusual statement issued from Camp David, where he had already retired for the weekend, Bush stepped directly into the debate over Rumsfeld's performance to offer his "strong support" and make it clear he will keep the embattled defense secretary. Rumsfeld separately declared that he will not go.

I have seen firsthand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions" of fighting terrorists while simultaneously transforming the military, Bush said. "Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation."

The president's decision to interject himself so forcefully stands in contrast to his mild reaction to recent reports of dissatisfaction with Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and reflected a calculation by Bush and his advisers that attacks on Rumsfeld by prominent former military commanders strike at the heart of his presidency. As Bush's choice to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rumsfeld serves as his proxy, and most of the judgments that have come under fire were shared by the president and Vice President Cheney as well.

Washington Post

On the local wing-nut station, the new night kid was actually argueing last night that Rummy was right to go in with less troops than many generals were recommending for Iraq because that way Iraqis would have a chance to 'work for their own freedom', which according to him, wouldn't have happened if the U.S. had gone in with enough troops to protect Iraq's borders from the rash of insurgents, and Saddam's abandoned weapons caches that insurgents are now using to attack U.S. forces. Not one of his brain-dead wingnut callers challenged him, which leads me to believe, his relatives must be the only one's calling and OAI is a joke.


What a dumbass!

[Nbadan]

What Rumsfeld knew
Salon
Interviews with high-ranking military officials shed new light on the role Rumsfeld played in the harsh treatment of a Guantánamo detainee.
By Michael Scherer and Mark Benjamin
April 14, 2006 |

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was personally involved in the late 2002 interrogation of a high-value al-Qaida detainee known in intelligence circles as "the 20th hijacker." He also communicated weekly with the man in charge of the interrogation, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the controversial commander of the Guantánamo Bay detention center.

During the same period, detainee Mohammed al-Kahtani suffered from what Army investigators have called "degrading and abusive" treatment by soldiers who were following the interrogation plan Rumsfeld had approved. Kahtani was forced to stand naked in front of a female interrogator, was accused of being a sexual, and was forced to wear women's underwear and to perform "dog tricks" on a leash. (sound familiar?) He received 18-to-20-hour interrogations during 48 of 54 days.

.....................

These disclosures are contained in a Dec. 20, 2005, Army inspector general's report on Miller's conduct, which was obtained this week by Salon through the Freedom of Information Act. The 391-page do ent -- which has long passages blacked out by the government -- concludes that Miller should not be punished for his oversight role in detainee operations, a fact that was reported last month by Time magazine. But the never-before-released full report also includes the transcripts of interviews with high-ranking military officials that shed new light on the role that Rumsfeld and Miller played in the harsh treatment of Kahtani, who had met with Osama bin Laden on several occasions and received terrorist training in al-Qaida camps.

In a sworn statement to the inspector general, Schmidt described Rumsfeld as "personally involved" in the interrogation and said that the defense secretary was "talking weekly" with Miller. Schmidt said he concluded that Rumsfeld did not specifically prescribe the more "creative" interrogation methods used on Kahtani. But he added that the open-ended policies Rumsfeld approved, and that the apparent lack of supervision of day-to-day interrogations permitted the abusive conduct to take place. "Where is the throttle on this stuff?" asked Schmidt, an Air Force fighter pilot, who said in his interview under oath with the inspector general that he had concerns about the length and repe ion of the harsh interrogation methods. "There were no limits."

Salon

It was all little Lyndie England!

[Nbadan]

Desert Rats Leave The Sinking Ship
Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign
The Guardian - Comment
Friday, April 14, 2006
By Greg Palast

Let me tell you a story about the Secretary of Defense you didn't read in the New York Times, related to me by General Jay Garner, the man our president placed in Baghdad as the US' first post-invasion viceroy.

Garner arrived in Kuwait City in March 2003 working under the mistaken notion that when George Bush called for democracy in Iraq, the President meant the Iraqis could choose their own government. Misunderstanding the President's true mission, General Garner called for Iraqis to hold elections within 90 days and for the U.S. to quickly pull troops out of the cities to a desert base. "It's their country," the General told me of the Iraqis. "And," he added, most ominously, "their oil."

Let's not forget: it's all about the oil. I showed Garner a 101-page plan for Iraq's economy drafted secretly by neo-cons at the State Department, Treasury and the Pentagon, calling for "privatization" (i.e. the sale) of "all state assets ... especially in the oil and oil-supporting industries." See it here. The General knew of the plans and he intended to shove it where the Iraqi sun don't shine. Garner planned what he called a "Big Tent" meeting of Iraqi tribal leaders to plan elections. By helping Iraqis establish their own multi-ethnic government -- and this was back when Sunnis, Shias and Kurds were on talking terms -- knew he could get the nation on its feet peacefully before a welcomed "liberation" turned into a hated "occupation."

But, Garner knew, a freely chosen coalition government would mean the death-knell for the neo-con oil-and-assets privatization grab.

On April 21, 2003, three years ago this month, the very night General Garner arrived in Baghdad, he got a call from Washington. It was Rumsfeld on the line. He told Garner, in so many words, "Don't unpack, Jack, you're fired."

Rummy replaced Garner, a man with years of on-the-ground experience in Iraq, with green-boots Paul Bremer, the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. Bremer cancelled the Big Tent meeting of Iraqis and postponed elections for a year; then he issued 100 orders, like some tin-pot pasha, selling off Iraq's economy to U.S. and foreign operators, just as Rumsfeld's neo-con clique had desired.

Reading this, it sounds like I should applaud the six generals' call for Rumfeld's ouster. Forget it.

For a bunch of military hotshots, they sure can't shoot straight. They're wasting all their bullets on the decoy. They've gunned down the puppet instead of the puppeteers.

There's no way that Rumsfeld could have yanked General Garner from Baghdad without the word from The Bunker. Nothing moves or breathes or spits in the Bush Administration without Darth Cheney's growl of approval. And ultimately, it's the Commander-in-Chief who's chiefly in command.

Greg Palast

[boutons_]

Behind the Military Revolt

By Richard Holbrooke
Sunday, April 16, 2006; B07

The calls by a growing number of recently retired generals for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have created the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951. In that epic drama, Truman was unquestionably correct -- MacArthur, the commanding general in Korea and a towering World War II hero, publicly challenged Truman's authority and had to be removed. Most Americans rightly revere the principle that was at stake: civilian control over the military. But this situation is quite different.

First, it is clear that the retired generals -- six so far, with more likely to come -- surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the planning period for the war in Iraq, made this clear in an extraordinary, at times emotional, article in Time magazine this past week when he said he was writing "with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership." He went on to "challenge those still in uniform . . . to give voice to those who can't -- or don't have the opportunity to -- speak."

These generals are not newly minted doves or covert Democrats. (In fact, one of the main reasons this public explosion did not happen earlier was probably concern by the generals that they would seem to be taking sides in domestic politics.) They are career men, each with more than 30 years in service, who swore after Vietnam that, as Colin Powell wrote in his memoirs, "when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons." Yet, as Newbold admits, it happened again. In the public comments of the retired generals one can hear a faint sense of guilt that, having been taught as young officers that the Vietnam-era generals failed to stand up to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson, they did the same thing.

Second, it is also clear that the target is not just Rumsfeld. Newbold hints at this; others are more explicit in private. But the only two people in the government higher than the secretary of defense are the president and vice president. They cannot be fired, of course, and the unspoken military code normally precludes direct public attacks on the commander in chief when troops are under fire. (There are exceptions to this rule, of course: In addition to MacArthur, there was Gen. George McClellan vs. Lincoln; and on a lesser note, Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, who was fired for attacking President Jimmy Carter over Korea policy. But such challenges are rare enough to be memorable, and none of these solo rebellions metastasized into a group, a movement that can fairly be described as a revolt.)

This has put President Bush and his administration in a ish position
at a time when security in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be deteriorating. If Bush yields to the generals' revolt, he will appear to have caved in to pressure from what Rumsfeld disingenuously describes as "two or three retired generals out of thousands." But if he keeps Rumsfeld, he risks more resignations -- perhaps soon -- from generals who heed Newbold's stunning call that as officers they took an oath to the Cons ution and should now speak out on behalf of the troops in harm's way and to save the ins ution that he feels is in danger of falling back into the disarray of the post-Vietnam era.

Facing this dilemma, Bush's first reaction was exactly what anyone who knows him would have expected: He issued strong affirmations of "full support" for Rumsfeld, even going out of his way to refer to the secretary of defense as "Don" several times in his statements. (This was in marked contrast to his tepid comments on the future of his other embattled Cabinet officer, Treasury Secretary John Snow. Washington got the point.)

In the end, the case for changing the secretary of defense seems to me to be overwhelming. I do not reach this conclusion simply because of past mistakes, simply because "someone must be held accountable." Many people besides Rumsfeld were deeply involved in the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan; many of them remain in power, and some are in uniform.

The major reason the nation needs a new defense secretary is far more urgent. Put simply, the failed strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be fixed as long as Rumsfeld remains at the epicenter of the chain of command. Rumsfeld's famous "long screwdriver," with which he sometimes micromanages policy, now thwarts the top-to-bottom reexamination of strategy that is absolutely essential in both war zones. Lyndon Johnson understood this in 1968 when he eased another micromanaging secretary of defense, McNamara, out of the Pentagon and replaced him with Clark M. Clifford. Within weeks, Clifford had revisited every aspect of policy and begun the long, painful process of unwinding the commitment. Today, those decisions are still the subject of intense dispute, and there are many differences between the two situations. But one thing was clear then and is clear today: Unless the secretary of defense is replaced, the policy will not and cannot change.

That first White House reaction will not be the end of the story. If more angry generals emerge -- and they will -- if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable; if the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan does not turn around (and there is little reason to think it will, alas), then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld. The only question is: Will it come so late that there is no longer any hope of salvaging something in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Richard Holbrooke, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, writes a monthly column for The Post.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[RandomGuy]

It brings up a very cogent point:

If Rumsfeld is so energetic and involved, as Bush says, how did Abu Gharaib happen without him knowing something was going on?

I have no doubts that Rummy works a lot.

I have a LOT of doubts as to Rumsfeld's ability to make good decisions. I think that the politicos are too much in the driver's seat and ignore good military advice when they find it might be inconvenient for domestic politics.

[boutons_]

[pache100]

I respect Rumsfeld for one thing and one thing only. On 9-11, he ran from his office to the crash site at the Pentagon and was digging through debris with his bare hands for survivors. His security contingent made numerous efforts to drag him away from the danger and he would not stop, he was like a man possessed. Finally, the carried him bodily to a chopper and got him away from the Pentagon.

I have always wondered what his motive for that behavior was. Guilt? Photo op? Genuine compassion? Doubt that last one. I don't know what his motive was, but I respect his effort that day.

Other than that, he is a pompous ass, a political freak, a pure turd, and I come almost as close to hating his guts as I do George Bush's.

[mookie2001]

^how many did he dig out?

[Yonivore]

From this morning's Wall Street Journal (subscription required):

Since our nation's founding, the principle of civilian control over the military has been a centerpiece of our system of government. Under our cons utional system, it places elected and appointed government leaders in charge. American soldiers are bound by this tradition to subordinate themselves to civilian authority. We give advice but it is ultimately up to civilian leaders to make key strategic and policy decisions. Unlike many other democracies, this is one important reason why we have never been ruled by the military, and have been the most successful country the world has ever seen.

Some critics suggest that the calls by the six retired generals signify widespread discontent in the military with Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership. It is preposterous for them to suggest that this small group represents the views of the 1.4 million men and women serving on active duty or the 7,000 retired generals and flag officers who respect, understand and appreciate the established American tradition of the military being subordinate to civilian control and direction....

Despite criticisms, Mr. Rumsfeld is arguably one of the most effective secretaries of defense our nation has ever had. Under his watch, the U.S. military has been transforming; it brilliantly deposed Mullah Omar's barbaric Taliban regime (Osama bin Laden's sanctuary) and Saddam Hussein's ruthless Baathist regime, freeing 50 million people from oppression and placing the countries on democratic paths. With these actions, terrorists have been denied secure home bases. These are a few key factors why terrorists have been unable to attack the American homeland again. The policy and forward strategy implemented by Secretary Rumsfeld has taken the fight to the enemy as did the nation in World War II and the Cold War.

Some, like Generals Zinni, Newbold, Eaton, Batiste, Swannack, Riggs and others, may not like Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership style. They certainly have the right as private citizens now to speak their minds. Some may feel that he's been unfair, arrogant and autocratic to some senior officers. But those sentiments and feelings are irrelevant. In the end he's the man in charge and the buck stops with him. As long as he retains the confidence of the commander in chief he will make the important calls at the top of the department of defense. That's the way America works. So let's all breathe into a bag and get on with winning the global war against radical Islam. In time the electorate, and history, will grade their decisions.

Lt. Gen. Crosby (ret.) is former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Lt. Gen. McInerney (ret.) is former assistant vice chief of staff, U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Moore (ret.), U.S. Air Force, was director of Central Command during Operation Desert Storm. Maj. Gen. Vallely (ret.) is former deputy commander of the U.S. Army, Pacific.

Here's what Rummy thinks:

A Reaffirming Conversation With Donald Rumsfeld

Relevant excerpt:

Of course, I had to ask about the growing list of ex-generals cashing book-advance checks for spitting on the war.

He said they cons ute a tiny fraction of generals under his supervision, and, in the case of the most recent and noteworthy, Tony Zinni, he shot back: "I've never met the man." Translation: "Don't waste my time with the pre-9/11-era criticisms of Bill Clinton's Centcom commander."

[Vashner]

They are just trying to take a chain out of Bush's armor.

Rummy on RUsh right now...

[boutons_]

What red herring/straw man bull .

I haven't heard any ing generals, or anybody else, complaining about civilian control of the military. They are complaining about the INCOMPETENCE of the civilians controlling the military. The phone Iraq was launched with an underwhelming, understaffed military, post-war planning (eg, there would be no insurgency, there would be no problems with security of reconstructions) was totally wrong. Many of these ups were foreseen by the military, were based on lessons learned BY MILITARY in VN (dubya and head evaded VN service) whose input was apparently ignored.

The Repug politicians told Rummy to start a phony war to win the 2004 election.
The military got ed, is being ed still.

The terrorists continue, the USA is no safer, after 10s of 1000s of military casulties and $1T burned up (but paid to Repug MIC companies at high margins).

[Yonivore]

The terrorists continue, the USA is no safer, after 10s of 1000s of military casulties and $1T burned up (but paid to Repug MIC companies at high margins).

Well, that certainly explains last weeks terrorist attack on...wait a minute...there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the U.S. since 2001.

[boutons_]

"there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the U.S. since 2001."

That one was on the Repug's watch. The Repugs were fully responsible for defending America then. They didn't.

Since 2001, the Repugs have started a phony war whose costs in US and other lives and $$$ far exceeded any damage done to USA by the terrorists attacks of 1993, 1995, and 2001.

[Yonivore]

"there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the U.S. since 2001."

That one was on the Repug's watch. The Repugs were fully responsible for defending America then. They didn't.

Since 2001, the Repugs have started a phony war whose costs in US and other lives and $$$ far exceeded any damage done to USA by the terrorists attacks of 1993, 1995, and 2001.

They all entered the country during Clinton's watch. Jamie Gorelick protected them with her "wall" between the intelligence and law enforcement communities.

You're an idiot.

[DarkReign]

Wait...so since there hasnt been a terrorist attack on American soil since 2001, then it must be directly related to the efforts of HSA and the Bush Administration?

What kind of ed up, telescopic thinking is that?!

[boutons_]

Did anybody hear the Repugs talk about terrorism as the USA's top or near-top priority between Jan and Sep 01? Did dubya and head, with all their secret NIE's etc, have the FBI/CIA/NSA on their anti-terrorists tip-toes through the summer of 2001 when all the "planes into buldings" chatter was going on? Were the Repugs "trustworthy on national security" between Jan and Sep 1001?

All the Repugs did prior to 9/11 was go after their entire objective for getting elected: cut taxes for the rich + corps, and rammed it through, then took the summer off.

The war on terror is a huge distraction to the Repugs' sole priority of protecting and enriching the rich and corps.

Wall or no wall between intelligence and enforcement, there was plenty of intelligence around that something was up, but the Repug administration did all to protect USA.

[Nbadan]

First of all, Clinton had Muhammed Atta under FBI survellience until he left the U.S. in the fall of 1999. Atta went to Germany and met with the Hansburg Al-Queda cell that got busted by German police. Atta was under German secret police survellience the whole time. Atta re-entered the U.S. in January of 2000, under Dubya's watch. The FBI failed to continue their survellience on Atta despite warnings from German authorities as Atta being a 'person of intrest'.

This whole 'intelligence wall' bull never really existed, it's all a smoke-screen to diffuse responsiblity. The fact is, Atta should have been under FBI survellience when he re-entered the U.S., or better yet, he should never have been allowed to re-enter the country in the first place. There is much we don't know about Muhammed Atta, for instance, his relationship with Amanda Keller, the stripper in Venice who has said in interviews that Atta was dripping in cash and cocaine in the club where she worked (some of you will remember how that whole situation was quickly swept under the rug by the corporate media) Kinda strange behavior for a bunch of 'religious zealots'.

[Vashner]

The whole media just spewes out this we are loosing crap. Truth is we are putting a hurt on them. Just takes time like hunting deer.

There really is nothing for us to blow up so we have to bait the ers the kill them.

Like corn feeder but Ramadi feeders.

[George W Bush]

The whole media just spewes out this we are loosing crap. Truth is we are putting a hurt on them. Just takes time like hunting deer.

There really is nothing for us to blow up so we have to bait the ers the kill them.

Like corn feeder but Ramadi feeders.

LOSE, LOSING, LOSER!


Even I'm not that dumb.

[boutons_]

[Yonivore]

Atta re-entered the U.S. in January of 2000, under Dubya's watch.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, President Bush was inaugurated on January 21, 2001; a full year after you claim Atta re-entered the U.S. And, even if you got your year wrong and it was January of 2001 -- was it before January 21?

[xrayzebra]

I just wonder. How many Generals are they in the military and retired. Several
thousand I would imagine. And only six are ing, and half of them have
books coming out I would imagine. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

[Yonivore]

I just wonder. How many Generals are they in the military and retired. Several thousand I would imagine. And only six are ing, and half of them have books coming out I would imagine. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

4,700

[xrayzebra]

4,700

Sounds about right.

[boutons_]

Whatever happened before 21 Jan 2001 became the responsibility of the Repugs on 21 Jan 2001, along with them inheriting the responsiblity for the all the agencies that fall under the Exec branch.

The Repugs were in power for 9 months before WTC attack. They could have prevented it if they had been trustworthy with national security, but they weren't. The Repugs failed miserably in that responsibility while rammig through the most unfair taxcuts in US History. They were strongly warned about al-Quaida by the outgoing Clinton gang, but anything coming from the Dems, or, even worse, Europeans, had to be ignored on principle. Polarizing, deaf and dumb from their own hubris blowing out their assholes, the Repugs ed America.