We need a team who can win

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by The Galatian, Dec 27, 2004.

  1. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rumsfeld has lost the confidence of the troops, and now the American people think it's time for him to go:

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Fifty-two percent of respondents to a new poll think Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should resign amid recent criticism in Congress over his handling of the war in Iraq.

    Thirty-six percent of respondents to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said Rumsfeld should not step down, and the remainder had no opinion.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/20/poll/

    Four in 10 said they approve of the way the United States has handled the situation in Iraq, while almost six in 10 disapprove, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll. A year ago, almost two-thirds approved of the way Iraq was being handled.

    Half in the Gallup poll said the situation is worse than a year ago, while 20 percent said it's better.

    http://www.indystar.com/articles/4/203757-6064-010.html

    He's messed up. He's lied to the troops why he messed up. This is too big a job for him to handle.

    It's hurting Bush, too.

    Washington, DC, Dec. 21 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush's approval rating has slipped 6 percent from November to 49 percent, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll published Tuesday said...Also for the first time, USA Today said a majority of 51 percent disapprove of the decision to go to war in Iraq, and 58 percent disapprove of the way the United States has handled Iraq over the past few months.

    http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041221-083650-6092r.htm

    Support for the war itself is now slipping because of this problem. And we can't walk out of this one now. Rumsfeld has become a liability for America.

    It's time for him to go.
     
  2. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am happy with the SOD. He should stay. Also, unless you have polling data from the troops in Iraq right now, you really should not post statements about what they think, sort of like Kerry tried to presume to do at the WSI.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  3. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can only go by their reaction when he appeared before them. It wasn't friendly.

    I'm sure that they don't think better of him, now that they've learned he lied to them at that time.

    What do you think?

    Meantime, the American public has lost confidence in him, and that is now affecting the confidence they have in Bush. And it's eroding support for the war.

    His continued role as Secretary of Defense has endangered the mission. Endangered it by his poor judgement, and by the subsequent erosion of support for it by the public.

    Whether or not it was a good idea to get into this mess, we cannot now leave without much greater damage.

    It's time for him to be replaced by someone who can do the job.
     
  4. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are wrong. And you should know better than to take an isolated incident that was based on an errorneous premise and to attribute that to the majority of troops in Iraq. You are only doing so for political reasons as did Kerry with his lies at the WSI. You couldn't defeat Bush, thus ending the war, so now you are going after his SOD. You will do or say anything to end a war for freedom in Iraq.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mr. Rumsfeld should stay. He's a winner. President Bush is a winner. The United States military is a winner, regardless of what the anti-war "whine and cheese" crowd thinks.
     
  6. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    You think the rest of the people sent to Iraq without body armor and sufficient armored vehicles to do their job would have reacted better? I don't think so.

    And it's not just the troops who have lost confidence in Rumsfeld. The American public thinks it's time for him to go, too.

    It's not just failure to put enough troops on the ground, although he was warned by his generals that it would be necessary.

    It's not just his failure to properly equip troops.

    It's not just the atrocities that went on because of his failure to manage.

    It's not just because he lied to the men and women fighting in Iraq.

    It's all of that, and the fact that he's now put the the entire operation into jeopardy. Polls show an erosion of support for the US occupation of Iraq. And regardless of how you feel about the way we got into it, we cannot now leave until we win.

    Granted, I don't mind that keeping Rumsfeld on, hurt's Bush's standing with the American people. But the war is more important than political advantage. Bush needs to get rid of the man.

    BTW, Kerry said that we would have to see the mission through. He would have ended the war only after we won. But right now, we're going the other way.

    You have it backwards. I think Rumsfeld should go because he is hurting the war effort. Clinton dumped his Secretary of Defense for far less. Bush would only benefit politically from finding an effective Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld has lost the confidence of Americans, in and out of the armed forces. Even republicans in Congress have said so.

    For the good of the country, and to see the war to a successful conclusion, he needs to be replaced.
     
  7. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Galatian,

    You have not demonstrated yet that the majority of troops in Iraq don't have confidence in Bush and Rumsfeld. The American Pulic has cast its vote of confidence in Bush already. Your guy lost. Just as Kerry took lies, innuendos, and half truth and tried to attribute that point of view to the majority of troops in Vietnam, you are doing the same. You are doing so for political reasons and therefore, should be ignored.

    Show me that the comments of one soldier who had not even gone into battle yet (he just arrived on the scene), was fed to him by a reporter, ad turned out to be erroneous, is reflective of the thoughts and feelings of the majority of the soldiers in Iraq and you might have a case. Otherwise, all you have is a political agenda. Where is the poll stating that the majority of troops in Iraq (certainly you don't think a bunch of guys who just showed up in Iraq and who haven't even been into battle yet are reflective of the majority of troops in Iraq) don't have confidence in Rumsfeld? How many in the military who voted this time voted for 4 more years of Bush, and the leadership of Bush's cabinet including Rumsfeld? Certainly, if they had no confidence and things were as bad as you like to paint them out to be, they would have coted for a change. I e-mailed Real Clear Politics last night and asked them the following question:

    Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics e-mailed this response back to me today:

    Sounds to me that the troops support the effort and this administration. You are wrong.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  8. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    They have to, it's their job. It's their boss.

    Let's do a poll of those who were lucky enough to get out intact....oh, wait - they had a stop loss order. :rolleyes:
     
  9. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Polls showed that the public was ready for "troops to come home" when news of the Battle of the Bulge" surfaced!!! Its a good thing for everybody that Ike and FDR didn't run that war lookin' at that stupid poll!! Gracious alive---you can't run a war---or a military, for all that matter---with a stupid gallop poll!! What's the matter with you guys!!
     
  10. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    No kidding? Can you post a link? That sounds incredible.

    Rumsfeld messed up. He ignored the advice of generals who had experience and knew what was needed. He failed to provide adequate material to the troops, to save money. And then he lied to them about it. The troops don't trust or respect him.

    Neither does the American public. If something isn't done, the support for the war is going to collapse to the point that it won't be politically possible to go on.

    We need someone who can do the job, who won't lie to the troops, and who's smart enough to pay attention when the veterans of such wars tell him what is needed.
     
  11. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    They have to, it's their job. It's their boss.

    Let's do a poll of those who were lucky enough to get out intact....oh, wait - they had a stop loss order. :rolleyes:
    </font>[/QUOTE]1. Are you trying to say it was their job to vote for him? Are you trying to say that it is their job to always support their superiors, no matter what? I guess the soldier in the town hall meeting didn't get the memo. You might not like the guy, but there is no evidence that the majority of troops don't. One guy who hasn't even been in battle yet who is fed a line by a reporter that turns out to be errorneous information does not a majority of soldiers against Rumsfeld make. Sorry, but your argument is illogical.

    Joseph Botiwnick
     
  12. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    They have to, it's their job. It's their boss.

    Let's do a poll of those who were lucky enough to get out intact....oh, wait - they had a stop loss order. :rolleyes:
    </font>[/QUOTE]Also, I would note that we did take a poll of all the soldiers. It was called the 2004 presidential election. Not too long before the election, the troops were voting 4-1 for Bush. Read the information provided to me by Real Clear Politics above.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  13. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oh, good grief, Joseph, quit arguing. [​IMG]

    Here's a really great site I just found full of all kinds of info. It would take days to wade through this site. [​IMG]

    http://www.iraqwarveterans.org/
     
  14. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Looks like a nice site. I will look at it further later on. Thanks.

    Joseph Botwinick [​IMG]
     
  15. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, the information was not erroneous, Joseph. In fact, their unit had been sent to Iraq minus necessary armor, and even at the time Rumsfeld was there, it had not been completed.

    That is inexcusable. And Rumsfeld then blamed the suppliers,claiming they couldn't do it any faster.

    He lied. They were ready to go, but Rumsfeld didn't see it as a priority.

    Disgusting. No wonder he got a hostile reception.
     
  16. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    web page
     
  17. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Joe!

    A lot is happening very fast...

    Some "oops!" are bound to occur in a "Just Do It" society...

    And, I believe research will confirm that (as horrendous as loss of life is) losses for any comparable time of actual conflict were very much higher than we have suffered in Iraq...

    Try comparing the Guerilla War the VC waged against us in Vietnam to what the insurgeancy is doing in Iraq... Compare those losses to todays...

    Compare the fact that those losses were occuring in a Jungle setting where in many cases we could just raze the area they were hiding.

    As opposed to an urban environment where any significant blast kills more civilians than hostiles...

    Also compare the ratio between turn-coat 'friendlies' in Vietnam to the very insignificant number in Iraq...

    In Vietnam you couldn't even trust your laundry boy not to plant a booby trap in your barracks...

    The last major conflict anyone really fought face to face was Vietnam... It was a jungle guerilla war...

    Now we are in the midst of an Urban Guerilla war...

    We had started courses and training syllabusses but they were incomplete when we got into this thing...

    How long do you wait before you push off?

    I doubt if ANY of the current crop of Generals advising the SOD has any real Vietnam In-Country Combat experience...

    And, Urban Warfare is *very* different than Jungle Warfare...

    We already have a winning team that has shown incredible flexibility to a continuously changing tactical environment...

    And, while it may appear that most of these arm chair generals have 20-20 hindsight I doubt it would make 20-200 after all the facts are in...
     
  18. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question is, "why did it take so long to do what they should have done before the unit was ever deployed?"

    And why did Rumsfeld decide that reserve units didn't need the body armor and armored vehicles that the regular army units had, even though they were exposed to the same danger?

    And why did he lie about the reason they weren't properly equipped?

    That he acted to correct the problem after troops refused missions, families wrote congressmen, and the famiies of soldiers in Iraq had to pay for necessary protection for them, does not excuse what he did.
     
  19. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. The vehicles were armored by the time this group actually deployed into Iraq. It should be kept in mind that these troops were in Kuwait and had not yet been into battle yet.

    2. Rumsfeld did not decide that. He has provided everything the generals and commanders on the ground have asked for.

    3. He didn't lie.

    4. some other thoughts about the armored vehicles:

    web page

    web page

    web page

    Since these quotes were pretty much ignored in the last attack Rumsfeld thread, I figured I would post them here.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  20. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again...

    Thanks Joseph
     

Share This Page

Loading...