Skip to comments.Help me out here...
Posted on 08/25/2004 11:58:04 AM PDT by hchutch
I need a little help.
How do I respond to the claim that I have heard in a couple of conversations with an acquaintance that Rumsfeld was IRRESPONSIBLE when he went to the scene of the Pentagon attack to help survivors?
Rumsfeld was acting, in a time of crisis, as a concerned human being for his colleagues. Please ask them to explain what it irresponsible about that? (Do they, like Kerry, also think Rummy should resign because of AbuGrahib?_
Ping - need some advice.
Simply ask if they feel all good samaritans are "irresponsible". If yes, then you don't need to speak further. If no, why does Rumsfeld ahve to act differently?
Courage can occasionally lead men to do brave, heroic, yet unwise things...
Seriously, if they had been there serving in Rumsfeld's capacity and people were dying and injured, what would they have done?
And after they tell you they would have run away, remember that if you're ever together in a crisis. :)
If I remember right he was in a meeting on the opposite side of the Pentagon when it was hit.
Maybe, maybe not.
Then again, I'd certainly feel better about a SecDef whose first instict is to run TO the sound of the guns than to hide out in some bunker...
Got MY vote...
The rendition I have heard was that Rumsfeld was being irresponsible because he should have been on the phone with the President, the VP, NSA Rice, Jt. Chmn Myers, etc. Instead, he was assessing the situation and helping, as much as he could help given the circumstances.
They get this argument from F' 9/11 and Moore's false insinuations that the President (and people in his administration, presumably Don Rumsfeld) could have and should have done sometime to stop the planes from crashing into the WTC, the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania.
Now, I know what you are saying: "How could Rumsfeld's presence on the scene at the Pentagon have prevented the WTC attacks or the Pentagon attacks?! They had already happened."
Which is precisely the question I ask. To wit (or lack thereof), I get, first a blank look and then a response like, "well, he was leaving the Pentagon and the country vunerable to other attacks like on the field in Pennsylvania".
I point out that by the time Rumsfeld exited the Pentagon (a few minutes after the impact at 9:37 AM) to see what was happening, the order had already been given for a "full stop" on all flights (9/11 report, p. 29).
This is the angle I have heard.
It is curiously amusing because here is a left trying to tell me about "responsibility" to the nation. These people don't have a friggin' clue about what responsibility really is.
It is really quite funny.
And if Rummy got himself killed by a wall collapsing on him?
Winfield Scott Hancock's quote (paraphrased) on July 3, 1863 comes to mind:
"There are times when a SECDEF's life does not count."
You're paraphrasing, right?...it was the War Secretary he was referring to?
On July 3, 1863, Hancock stayed in a highly vulnerable position during the artillery bombardment preceding Pickett's Charge.
His quote was: "There are times when a corps commander's life does not count."
Atleast he didn't sit paralyzed with nuanced angst for 40 minutes.
Tell them that Bush is criticized for not immediately leaping into action and Rumsfeld is criticized for leaping into action. They want it both ways.
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.