Posted on 12/18/2004 4:40:13 AM PST by johnny7
WASHINGTON - President Bush and the Senate's top two Republicans voiced support for Donald Rumsfeld on Friday as allies of the defense secretary sought to outflank increasingly vocal GOP critics in and out of Congress. "Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a great job leading our efforts at the Department of Defense to win the war on terrorism and to help bring about a free and peaceful Iraq," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Friday. "And he's instrumental in our efforts during this time of war we are in."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., issued a statement saying that he, too, is "confident that Secretary Rumsfeld is fully capable of leading the Department of Defense and our military forces to victory in Iraq and the war on terror." And Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP whip, said Rumsfeld "is an excellent secretary of defense, and we are fortunate to have a man of his courage and vision serving the president at this critical time." Rumsfeld's supporters spoke out after several days of GOP criticism aimed at the man who has steered the Pentagon during the Iraq war and its messy aftermath. More than 1,300 American troops have died since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began in 2003. None of Rumsfeld's congressional GOP critics has called for his ouster.
Still, they have grown increasingly outspoken in recent days, less than two weeks after the White House disclosed that the president wanted the defense secretary to remain in his post into a second term. The increased criticism from Republicans also comes after Rumsfeld's encounter with troops in Kuwait who complained about long deployments and a lack of armored vehicles and other equipment. "I'm not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld," said Sen. Trent Lott in remarks to the Biloxi, Miss., Chamber of Commerce this week. "I don't think he listens enough to his uniformed officers."
The Mississippi Republican said Bush should make a change at the Pentagon in the next year or so. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, released a letter to Rumsfeld asking why the Army had not moved more aggressively to produce fully armored Humvees for the troops in Iraq -- an issue she said she had raised at a hearing nine months ago. "I don't like the way he has done some things. I think they have been irresponsible," said Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. The Vietnam veteran's list of criticisms was long: "We didn't go into Iraq with enough troops. He's dismissed his general officers. He's dismissed all outside influence. He's dismissed outside counsel and advice."
Umm - Could you try that again in English? I have no idea what you were trying to say.
I used the term war planners. That includes GWB, Cheney,
Rumsfeld down to the bottom..
If you don't think this invasion was hurried up because of the
upcoming federal elections I've got a whole lot of stuff I want
to get you to bid on.
GHWB took 18 months to invade a country that Saddam had already occupied and was brutalizing. He prepared the
battlefield.
Why the three month mad dash to march to Bagdad.? Does 90%
approval rating sound like a campaign plus? That was the plum
the political wing of the White House was wanting to pluck. Piece of cake.
Hey conspiracy theories belong at DU buddy.
What part do you disagree with?
bump
The complete context was not reported. You seem to have made up your mind that Rumsfeld be damned whatever he said.
It was also not reported that the troopers gave him a standing ovation at the conclusion of the remarks. Not reported. In fact, it *seemed* that it was not well-received.
Just more instances of what the soldiers complain about -- not getting the full story reported from Iraq.
It is 'bout time. I think he's done an outstanding job. He works his A off....and no one gives him the credit he deserves.
If people that claim they have the troops best interests at heart want to take pot shots at a man that works tirelessly to rebuild the military and has the guts to take questions in a live press conference because they don't like his straight talk, their loss.
I support Rumsfeld.
If people that claim they are interested in the security of this nation and victory in the WOT want to imagine they, themselves, could contruct a better war plan than a man that has won two wars and seen one country celebrate it's first election, I'll leave them to their delusions.
I support Rumsfeld.
If Senators with a god complex, at very least Presidential complex, wish to blame their failures on Rumsfeld, I sincerely hope they pay for it at the ballot box by conservatives with memories of an elephant.
I support Rumsfeld.
If inflated talking heads wish to imagine their opinions hold any greater weight than mine, I hope their ratings continue to decline.
I support Rumsfeld.
I am and will continue to take notes on anyone that doesn't fully support Secretary Rumsfeld. The same way I noted anyone that didn't rise to the Swiftboat Veterans Defense. This will not be forgotton, though I do thank them. It's appreciated that some of the back stabbing fools have exposed who they are without having to smoke them out.
Further, I would seem to be in good company. The Troops gave the Sec a standing ovation at that press conference. Last time he was under attack and attended an event with the President, I think Rummy received a larger applause of support than the President himself. Considering how beloved this President is by our troops, I make note of unsolicited expressions of Faith in our Leaders. I would wager an educated guess the Secretary is beloved by these men and woman fighting for us, and that they appreciate he speaks directly to them to find out their complaints and solve them.
You haven't any idea at all who I am or what my current duties but I can guarantee that we don't "LOVE" Rumsfeld. I can also guarantee that I've spent more time in the Pentagon than you have and definitely more time serving the wounded from this war. Rumsfeld is an arrogant, high-handed know-it-all that hasn't spent five minutes in a ground-gaining arm of the service. (For your edification, Secretary of Defense is occasionally truncated as SecDef, not SECDEV).
Ask the army how much they love Rumsfeld for what he's done to them and their programs...
Before you accuse someone of not knowing what they're talking about, read up a little bit on the pertinent subjects first.
BTW, if we decided "fight in the streets", you wouldn't be happy with the result.
Steadily advancing towards the objective, never wavering except when the politicians etc. get in the way, Rumsfeld's experts are doing one heck of a good job with a superb military of strong, well trained young Soldiers, Airmen, Marines and other 'support groups' we know little about.
The only thing Bush and Rumsfeld did wrong was wait 14 months while the UN negotiated with Saddam.
If we fought in the street, I would have no problem with the result either way. That is the difference between you and me. You talk a lot of trash, you grandstand, but you are ignorant to the matters at hand. You are simply over your head.
Either that, or you could use a refresher course in reading comprehension. You take comments out of context to support your world-view, which is limited by your knowledge and your bias. Wake up, boy.
They had no choice unless they were going to bankroll it out of their checking account.
Well, that's the only other thing they did wrong.
Rumsfeld will be gone unless the elections in Iraq are held
on schedule and have at least some legitimacy.
I am afraid the elections will not take place next month. If so,
you're really gonna be pissed off.
"That clip of his comments was one sentence sliced and diced from a more extended answer. Until you hear his entire comment to the soldier I'd back off from any hasty judgements. Very unfair of the media to take one sentence out of a much longer and more understanding answer. Try to get the whole clip." ~ Zechariah11
You'll find much of it below:
Clinton Cut the Military
December 17, 2004
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com
"U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe said Thursday that cutbacks during the Clinton administration resulted in the lack of armor and other material faced by U.S. troops in Iraq." Finally! Finally somebody in elected Washington who is out there willing to tell the truth. You know something? I must be honest with you. Sometimes, even though we're a very large show, a lot of us out there, sometimes it gets real frustrating here, folks. This is about this Rumsfeld stuff. By the way, could you grab for me the one-minute, seven-second bite that we played yesterday from Rumsfeld answering the question from the troops?
What I have learned -- and I guess this was an oversight on my part -- but apparently people do not know that Rumsfeld said anything other than, "You go to war with the Army you have."
The media did not play the 30 seconds prior to that.
They air the soldier's question that was planted by the reporter about the lack of up-armored Humvees, and they play Rumsfeld saying, "You go to war with the Army you have," and so, you know, everybody jumped. ....
So ... we point out that for the last 10 years, 12 years, the military had serious real cuts. The military lost a lot of budget money, the military lost a lot of opportunity for troop deployment. The military lost a lot of armaments, they were not upgraded. There were the genuine cuts in the Clinton years and all during that time Rumsfeld was not there.
But I'll tell you who was: Half of these senators that are bitching and moaning about this were there, and they had a chance to stop this and didn't. And now they come to this late in life and they act like they got bamboozled again, like Rumsfeld was a one man show running the war and making sure our troops don't have armor because he doesn't care, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You had McCain piling on, you had Susan Collins piling on; Norm Coleman is the latest to pile on, from Minnesota. He piled on yesterday. Who else piled on out there? I'm leaving somebody off this. Oh, Lott. Lott piled on. It's frustrating here because these guys were all there. These guys were all in the Senate when all these cuts were made. I didn't hear any complaints about the Clinton administration back then. I didn't hear one complaint about it.
I didn't hear any complaints about William Cohen. William Cohen was the secretary of defense when all this happened and he's held up in the highest esteem and regard you can imagine, because he was a Republican that crossed lines and worked for Clinton -- a moderate Republican, but nevertheless a Republican.
So we sit here, we say this over and over and over and finally yesterday Senator Inhofe, from Oklahoma, puts it out there. "Cutbacks during the Clinton administration resulted in a lack of armor and other material faced by U.S. troops in Iraq."
He was in Muskogee, Oklahoma, and he said during a stop there, "Eight years of Bill Clinton decimated the military to almost half of what it was in 1990."
He's a member of the Senate armed services committee. He said that in 1991, U.S. armed forces were armed with "a Reagan military" and had more funding and ordinance. However, under Clinton, projects were cut and "modernization stopped."
As you know: The Army and the Pentagon have come under sharp attack for the lack of armor on many of the Humvees, trucks and other vehicles that U.S. troops use in Iraq. Insurgents using roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades have regularly targeted military vehicles as it killed and injured numerous U.S. troops.
So it's Rumsfeld's fault. Well, finally somebody in the Senate, on the armed services committee, is speaking out -- and I want you to listen to Rumsfeld here.
You all know what the question was. "Why do we not have enough armor on our Humvees? Why are we having to scrounge scrap heaps in Iraq to find armor for our Humvees," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. This is a question planted by this reporter from Tennessee, Chattanooga, and I'm stunned to learn this. I'm happy to provide this public service.
A lot of people think that all Rumsfeld said, "Well, you go to war with the Army you have." I want you to listen to what he says before that.
This is another great example of media manipulation of truth, trying to create a truth that didn't exist and didn't occur. Rumsfeld answered the question with specific details and then said, "You go to war with the Army that you have," and followed it up with more details. Here's his answer
RUMSFELD: I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed to a place here where they are needed. I'm told that they're being -- the Army is -- I think it's something like 400 a month are being done, and it's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary. I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that it would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip.
RUSH: Now, what you also don't know is that at the end of all of this, the whole town hall meeting, Rumsfeld got a prolonged standing ovation from these troops -- and yet the story has gone out that he dissed them, that he was flippant, that he didn't take their concerns seriously, that all he basically said was, "Well, screw you. You go to war with the Army that you've got," and you heard that was the smallest of what he said.
He gave them tremendous detail on the effort to get these Humvees armored, told them the pace, explained how it was happening. So I'm happy to play that again.
I was stunned to learn from so many people when we played that yesterday it was the first time they'd heard it.
Because when I saw it on television, I saw the whole thing. I just assumed that it hadn't been edited down for repeated usage, but I should have known better. ..." [end excerpt]
More:
What the media got wrong about Spc. Wilson and Secretary Rumsfeld.
Wall Street Journal.com ^ | 12/15/2004 | JOHN R. GUARDIANO http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006029
Posted on 12/15/2004 10:09:12 AM EST by KeyLargo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1301914/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.