We need a team who can win

Um, yes, Rumsfeld lied. When questioned by the troops about his failure to provide adequate equipment, he told them suppliers couldn't provide it fast enough.

But that was a lie. In fact, they had capacity to do much more than Rumsfeld asked them for. He made a decision to save some money. And it killed American troops.

Boston Globe Dec 10/2004
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/10/us_stance_on_armor_disputed/

Numerous units were sent into Iraq with inadequate or no armor, without body armor, etc. Would you like to review the facts in detail, Joseph?

"Interceptor body armor has been credited with saving at least 29 lives in the war in Afghanistan. It consists of a Kevlar vest with removable ceramic inserts that can stop rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle. Strickland said in November that 40 percent of soldiers in Iraq still lacked this protection.

“This administration owes the American people—especially the families of soldiers—an explanation as to why it failed to properly equip our troops,” he said.

In a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., Strickland and 102 other House members said mothers and fathers of men and women in the service are purchasing ceramic plates for these Interceptor vests and sending them to their sons and daughters in Iraq."
http://www.fendonline.com/families/2003/FF121803.htm

The fact that Rumsfeld belatedly listened to the generals who told him that he was sending too few men, with too little protection, is hardly an excuse. He should have paid attention in the first place.

"Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom they see as responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him.

A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States is already on the road to defeat. "It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this," he said. "The American people may not stand for it -- and they should not."

Asked who was to blame, this general pointed directly at Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. "I do not believe we had a clearly defined war strategy, end state and exit strategy before we commenced our invasion," he said. "Had someone like Colin Powell been the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], he would not have agreed to send troops without a clear exit strategy. The current OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] refused to listen or adhere to military advice."

Like several other officers interviewed for this report, this general spoke only on the condition that his name not be used. One reason for this is that some of these officers deal frequently with the senior Pentagon civilian officials they are criticizing, and some remain dependent on top officials to approve their current efforts and future promotions. Also, some say they believe that Rumsfeld and other top civilians punish public dissent. Senior officers frequently cite what they believe was the vindictive treatment of then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki after he said early in 2003 that the administration was underestimating the number of U.S. troops that would be required to occupy postwar Iraq."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11227-2004May8.html

Joseph, Rumsfeld is hurting the war effort, he's hurting Bush politically, and he's hurting America.

It's time for him to go.

 

So all those generals, and news organizations are lying, and Joseph alone is telling the truth?

Denial's not just a river in Egypt, Joseph.

Rumsfeld failed to protect our troops, and then lied to them about his reasons for failing.

He's hurting the war effort, and it's time we got someone capable of doing the job.

 

So the people who owe their jobs to Bush aren't criticizing Rumsfeld? But some of them did.

Conservative columnist Robert Novak:
In his latest policy disagreement with Rumsfeld, Shinseki on Feb. 25 testified to Congress that "several hundred thousand soldiers" might be necessary for post-war occupation of Iraq. White last week did not join the Pentagon's civilian leadership in contradicting Shinseki's estimate but endorsed the general's credentials. Not only did this undermine Rumsfeld's efforts to gain control of the officer corps that he felt

ran wild during the Clinton days, but it raised the specter of a long and difficult occupation of Iraq...Breaking all precedent, Rumsfeld had announced 14 months in advance that Shinseki would be stepping down as chief of staff. Thus, the general was a longtime lame duck Feb. 25 when Sen. Carl Levin, senior Democrat on Armed Services, asked him how many troops would be needed to occupy Iraq.

His "several hundred thousand" answer was so far from the official line that it confirmed Rumsfeld's view of Clintonite generals out of control. While Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz declared Shinseki "wildly off the mark" and Rumsfeld also disagreed, the general stuck to his estimate.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030313.shtml

Joseph, the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff told him he was wrong. They were right. Belately, he's finally figured that out, and is sending more troops. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans had to die for him to learn that.

And he lied about some of it, to our troops.

That's not what I call a good job. Rumsfeld is a pie-in-the-sky ideologue, entranced with his own version of reality, and vindictive toward anyone on his staff who doesn't agree.

He's hurting the war effort, and he's hurting America.

It's time for him to go.

 

If so, whats this about...

On December 1, the Pentagon announced that they were sending more troops to Iraq and increasing U.S. troop levels there to the highest level of the war. They are also extending time for many troops again.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/12/mil-041201-dod02.htm

Looks like the generals were right, and Rumsfeld was wrong. There were just too few troops and not enough equiptment to do the job. Too bad a lot of soldiers had to die to convince him.

 

Rumsfeld put his ideological beliefs ahead of the experience of generals who had actually been in combat. He was wrong, and it cost a lot of American lives. Now he's belatedly taking their advice. Not good enough.

We don't need more generals. We need a Secretary of Defense who's smart enough to listen to the experienced generals we do have.

 

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

Sir Winston Churchill

It wasn't bad luck that made Rumsfeld ignore the advice of experience. It was ideological blinders compounded by equal parts of hubris and incompetence.

 

The senior officers who told Rumsfeld that he was underestimating the number of troops needed turned out to be right.

Rumsfeld is now quietly increasing troop strength in Iraq, as they told him he would have to do.

It's a pity that his education was paid for with the lives of American soldiers.

It's time to get someone who can handle the job.

 

Rumsfeld ignored the judgement of his senior staff. It turned out that they were right, and his failure killed American soldiers.

Now, he's giving the troops the armor he said they didn't need, and he's providing the extra troops he said were unnecessary.

It's too bad people had to die to educate him. That's not what the American people think is a "good job."

In the wake of controversial remarks made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey finds a majority of Americans saying Rumsfeld should resign. Only 36% say he should not. Also, the public disapproves of the way Rumsfeld is handling his job by a 50% to 41% margin. President George W. Bush's job approval may also be suffering from the controversy, as his approval rating -- now below 50% -- has dropped to levels not seen since before the election.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14407

It's time for him to go.