Rumsfeld says he won't resign

[Cobra]

Why does Bush support Rumsfeld so much, it doesn't look like he's doing that great of job in Iraq to me.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061001/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld

MANAGUA, Nicaragua - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, coming under renewed fire for his management of the Iraq war, said Sunday he is not considering resigning and said the president had called him personally in recent days to express his continued support.

Speaking to reporters en route to Nicaragua for a meeting of defense ministers, Rumsfeld said he was not surprised by reports in a new book that White House staff had encouraged President Bush to fire him after the 2004 election.

"It's the task of the chief of staff of the White House — and having been one, I know that — to raise all kinds of questions with the president and think through different ways of approaching things," Rumsfeld said. "So it wouldn't surprise me a bit if that subject had come up."

Asked by reporters if he had recently considered resigning, Rumsfeld said, "No."

In the new book "State of Denial," Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward writes that former White House chief of staff Andrew Card twice sought to persuade Bush to fire Rumsfeld.

Card on Friday did not dispute that he had talked about a Rumsfeld resignation with the president but said it was his job to discuss a wide range of possible replacements, including his own.

Rumsfeld on Sunday also denied any rift with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and said the ongoing debate doesn't detract from his work with other international leaders.

He said he had spoken to Bush since the book's contents were made public. Bush "called me personally," said Rumsfeld, to voice support.

Rumsfeld has previously acknowledged that he twice offered Bush his resignation, but it was not accepted.

The defense secretary and Bush have faced growing criticism for their handling of the Iraq war as violence there has escalated, U.S. casualties have mounted and public support for the conflict has declined. Fueling the debate in recent days was the release of a classified intelligence report that concluded that the Iraq war has helped fuel a new generation of extremists and increased the overall terrorist threat.

Just back from a five-day trip to the Balkan region, which included a NATO defense ministers meeting in Slovenia, Rumsfeld arrived in Nicaragua Sunday afternoon for two days of meetings with defense officials from more than 30 South and Central American countries.

The talks here — in one of the Western Hemisphere's poorest countries — are expected to focus on counter-narcotics and counterterrorism efforts, peacekeeping missions, humanitarian and disaster relief and the removal of land mines from the region.

The meeting of the region's defense ministers follows a tense period in which Venezuela's leaders lashed out at the U.S. and President Bush during a U.N. meeting in New York City. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called Bush "the devil" and slammed U.S. leaders for trying to block his country from taking a seat on the U.N. Security Council.

Rumsfeld said Sunday he did not expect to meet privately with the Venezuelan defense minister, although he will see him during the regular meeting.

U.S. officials have long considered Chavez a destabilizing force in Latin America. And they have suggested that Venezuela would make the U.N. Security Council unworkable if the nation were to win its bid against U.S.-backed Guatemala for a rotating council seat.

Also of interest to U.S. leaders is the possibility that Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, whose socialist government was a major antagonist of the United States in the 1980s, has been leading in the polls for the upcoming Nicaraguan presidential election.

Ortega led the overthrow of dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1979 and fought the U.S.-backed Contra rebels as Nicaragua's president from 1985-90.

[Labrocca]

I don't have a problem with Rumsfeld. I think a man of lesser integrity would have folded under this pressure but Rumsfeld stays the course. When I speaks I get chills down my spine. He is very precise and possibly one of the best speakers off the cuff I have ever seen. You can't shake this guy no matter what you ask. Even Clinton got bent being interviews on Fox.

[Drocket]

Regardless of how good of a public speaker he may be, the simple reality is that he's stunningly incompetent at the job that he's supposed to be doing, and soldiers are dying because of that. The man is a walking, talking example of a sociopath - any 'unshakablility' he may display is because he doesn't give a flying fuck about anyone else.

[Cobra]

I don't like the way he speaks but will agree he's pretty good at it. I don't think it's integrity that keeps him on the course/job though, pride and ego more likely.

[lily]

You know you're in trouble, when Fox runs an infomercial for him titled "Rumsfailed. Why he fights".

[Drocket]

Going back to what I said about Rumsfeld being a psychopath, there's a book I'd recommend: Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us (http://www.amazon.com/Without-Conscience-Disturbing-Psychopaths-Among/dp/1572304510/sr=8-3/qid=1159750427/ref=pd_bbs_3/102-6705743-5596930?ie=UTF8&s=books), as well as the 'follow up' book by the same author, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0060837721/sr=8-9/qid=1159750427/ref=pd_bbs_9/102-6705743-5596930?ie=UTF8&s=books). The basic ideas of the book are how people who are psychopaths are able to not just get along in the world, but often succeed quite brilliantly (even when they fail quite spectacularly.) That's because a lot of people mistake the core traits of a psychopath - complete inability to care about others and making instantaneous decisions because they don't care about the outcome - as 'leadership', 'determination', and the like. Their ability to schmooze with others often gets them one promotion after another, even when their record is one disaster after another (which they usually explain away as 'yeah, but I learned from that' without giving the matter any further thought.)

If you read them, its impossible to NOT recognize Rumsfeld as a psychopath. The psychiatric definition of a psychopath reads pretty much exactly like it was written as a description of Rumsfeld.

**Edit**
Here's the medical checklist of the signs of psychopathy. Do any of these NOT apply to Rumsfeld? Pretty much the only one that isn't easily proven is #11.

1. Glibness/superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4. Pathological lying
5. Conning/manipulative
6. Lack of remorse or guilt
7. Shallow affect
8. Callous/lack of empathy
9. Parasitic lifestyle
10. Poor behavioral controls
11. Promiscuous sexual behavior
12. Early behavioral problems
13. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17. Many short-term marital relationships
18. Juvenile delinquency
19. Revocation of conditional release
20. Criminal versatility

[Labrocca]

...the simple reality is that he's stunningly incompetent at the job that he's supposed to be doing, and soldiers are dying because of that.Â*

I don't agree and you certainly can't prove that statement. You can only get others OPINIONS on the matter. In war soldiers die. Having more troops there would most likely have it's own problems and the Dems still would have used it against Rumsfeld. People are dying not becuase of Rumsfeld but because we are at war! And guess what..people were dying when we weren't at war so was that Rumsfelds fault too? I find everything Rummy says to be incredibly creditable. He isn't one that gets caught with foot in mouth.

Rummy is as far away from being a Psychopath as possible. His loyalty to the President (and dare say I the American people) are unmoving. I like how you seem to miss that part of the links you sent. What would satisfy you? That he cries everytime a soldier dies?

[Cobra]

Here's the medical checklist of the signs of psychopathy. Do any of these NOT apply to Rumsfeld? Pretty much the only one that isn't easily proven is #11.
I only have a few of those, guess I'm not a psychopath :(. Hey I wouldn't mind to be as successful as you claim they tend to be.

[Labrocca]

WOW...your overreaching big time.

1. Glibness/superficial charm NOPE
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth NOPE
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom NOPE
4. Pathological lying NOPE
5. Conning/manipulative NOPE
6. Lack of remorse or guilt NOPE
7. Shallow affect NOPE
8. Callous/lack of empathy NOPE
9. Parasitic lifestyle NOPE
10. Poor behavioral controls NOPE
11. Promiscuous sexual behavior NOPE
12. Early behavioral problems NOPE
13. Lack of realistic, long-term goals NOPE
14. Impulsivity NOPE
15. Irresponsibility NOPE
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions NOPE
17. Many short-term marital relationships NOPE
18. Juvenile delinquency NOPE
19. Revocation of conditional release NOPE
20. Criminal versatilityNOPE

Most of these how would you even know. I mean cmon..sexual promiscuity! Oh please...you can't call an Apple an Orange simply because your color blind.

[lily]

Drocket

17. Many short-term marital relationships

I'd have to say that this one doesn't fit either. His wife was on his infomercial.

Labrocca, I honestly don't understand your post. His job performance in Iraq is mindboggling! If he was doing such an all fired fine job, why would he, himself offer his resignation twice?

Sorry........Rumsfailed is a failure. You know, in this one I really do have pity for Bush......I think he knows this too, but in his mind, if he fired Rumsfailed, he thinks he would look like a failure too.

[Drocket]

He could at least try to care a tiny, itty-bitty little bit about the rapidly-approaching-3000 dead soldiers. Instead, we get bullshit like 'you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want' to explain away his utter mismanagement of supplying armor to troops in Iraq. Then, of course, was his amazingly astute observation "Stuff happens" as Iraq collapsed into chaos due to a complete lack of post-war planning.

And, of course, the quote that shows how from the very beginning, he utterly failed to even begin to comprehend the mess he was stirring up in Iraq: "It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Or maybe a few decades, as the experts who he was busy firing suggested.

[Labrocca]

you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want
Seems like a reasonable explanation to me. Sucks when a guy always sounds so reasonable doesn't it. As for him being a failure..I don't see it. I remember when this all started and the President and Rumsfeld repeatedly spoke about this being a long term war that may take a very long time to resolve. There was never any discussion that I recall saying a time-frame to win this. In what context is he a failure? For not meeting YOUR demands and timeframe? What is your definition of success..and be realistic dammit.

Also we won the Iraq war very quickly...what we have not won is the war on terror. The insurgency is NOT Iraq..it's terrorists. They are coming from all over to fight. I would 100% rather they fight us in Iraq than to have these terrorist roaming to different parts of the world in a terrorist cell. And I am certain that they would be if not for Iraq. Before Iraq...that's what they were doing..you can't dispute this.

[Drocket]

I repeat:

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." - Rumsfeld

"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon" - Wolfowitz

“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.� - Rumsfeld

[lily]

Â*They are coming from all over to fight. I would 100% rather they fight us in Iraq than to have these terrorist roaming to different parts of the world in a terrorist cell.Â*Â*And I am certain that they would be if not for Iraq.Â*Â*Before Iraq...that's what they were doing..you can't dispute this.


huh? In case you haven't noticed, Iraq hasn't stopped them from roaming to different parts of the world in terrorists cells.

[Rider]

The courses of action in Iraq are constrained by the political situation at home. The hands of the military are pretty much tied at this point. The Democrats and their allies on the left and in the media have brought the war to a standstill, just as they intended. They have forced the war into the "quagmire" state that they desire in order to use it as a weapon to regain power.

[Rider]

As for terrorists in Iraq; there are about 4000 fewer than a couple of months ago.

[Elrathin]

you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want
Seems like a reasonable explanation to me.

I also remember this administration saying that we would go to war on a time and place of OUR CHOOSING. That means we could have gone to war with the Army we want and not the one we had.

[Elrathin]

As for terrorists in Iraq; there are about 4000 fewer than a couple of months ago.


And how many were created because of the 4000? How many do we have left now because of our actions?

That is the problem this administration is not seeing and neither are a lot of people here. It does no good to kill 4000, if we created 10,000 more.

[Rider]

Elrathin, the number of terrorists created will be inversely proportional to the likelyhood of their bloody, violent death on the battlefield. Already the flow of foreign fighters has diminished greatly. If the Iraqis make a stand against them, they stand an excellent chance of winning. And let's not sell them short, either. People who literally risk death to vote may be tougher than you think.

[Buck Laser]

Any time a public official announces that he won't resign--he's going to resign. Count on it.

[Rider]

Eltrathin wrote- I also remember this administration saying that we would go to war on a time and place of OUR CHOOSING. That means we could have gone to war with the Army we want and not the one we had.
Nope, it would never be so. No matter how much preparation or money spent, it would never be enough. Our military is the finest and best equipped the world has ever seen. Still, the Democrats and their toadies in the media attack like a pack of hyenas at every perceived shortcoming. Did you forsee the need for armored Humvees? Did you read anything put out by anti or pro war sources about the need for armored Humvees? Of course not; no one foresaw the need. When was the term IED first used?
If you compare the preparedness of our forces in Iraq with any other war in our history you will see that we were far, far better equipped and prepared.
You're just spouting talking points.

[Elrathin]

Did you forsee the need for armored Humvees?

Yes, I did, and so did a lot of people. This was before the war began in Iraq, when we were still in Afghanistan. Troops DEFINATELY saw the need and even voiced that opinion.

When was the term IED first used?

During the Afghanistan war.


If you compare the preparedness of our forces in Iraq with any other war in our history you will see that we were far, far better equipped and prepared.

That is irrelevant whether or not we are better prepared than other countries, we could have been MORE prepared had this administration listened to people instead of dreaming that we would be liberators.


You're just spouting talking points.


Yes, I know, anything to you against this administration is a talking point.

[lily]

The courses of action in Iraq are constrained by the political situation at home. The hands of the military are pretty much tied at this point. The Democrats and their allies on the left and in the media have brought the war to a standstill, just as they intended. They have forced the war into the "quagmire" state that they desire in order to use it as a weapon to regain power.


I've asked you this now at least three times now, Rider.......can you give me an example of exactly what the Democrats have said no to in this war?

You seem to put an awful lot of power in the evils of the free press and the party that does not have control of either the house or the senate, instead of the man who is actually calling the shots over there.

If this ever turns around, then is it going to be because of the Democrats and the media........since we are to blame? Will we get the credit then?

[Rider]

Elrathin wrote-
RE:Â*Â*Rumsfeld says he won't resign

Rider Wrote:

Did you forsee the need for armored Humvees?


Yes, I did, and so did a lot of people. This was before the war began in Iraq, when we were still in Afghanistan. Troops DEFINATELY saw the need and even voiced that opinion.

OK, I'll give you that, I was thinking more in terms of the post 9/11 fighting.

Rider Wrote:
When was the term IED first used?


During the Afghanistan war.

same as above


Rider Wrote:

If you compare the preparedness of our forces in Iraq with any other war in our history you will see that we were far, far better equipped and prepared.


That is irrelevant whether or not we are better prepared than other countries, we could have been MORE prepared had this administration listened to people instead of dreaming that we would be liberators.

I was refering to our readiness, not other countries. And yes, we could have been more prepared. Every month, every year, we would have been better prepared; BUT- never enough to satisfy the anti war/Bush crowd and you know it. We could have waited 5 years and built an even mightier armed force and they still would have screamed like stuck pigs. When we entered WWII our technology was inferior in almost every aspect to the Germans and Japanese alike. We sent tankers and pilots into battle with little or no chance of survival.

Rider Wrote:

You're just spouting talking points.



Yes, I know, anything to you against this administration is a talking point.

Absolutely not, but you have to admit that what you've just said sounds almost exactly the same as the Democrat party line.

[sbannon]

I'm by no means anti-war but I'll accept the crown of anti-Bush, still this thread began on discussing Rumsfeld's ability or lack-of to do an effective job so I'll stick to that debate.

Why is it, if someone questions the competence of Rumsfeld--and provides accurate and documented reasoning for their concerns--they're automatically attacked as partisan and their concerns seemingly dismissed out-of-hand so easily? If we flipped the tables you could say that those who still hold confidence enough in Rumsfeld to support him and defend him without debating the merits of other's concerns and questions are doing so out of a similar partisan blind-faith mentality.

Somewhere between the bickering is the truth, and for the sake of our brave men and women in uniform a rational examination should be made without the partisan and divisive sniping.

It's documented that during the prewar planning--warnings were given to Rumsfeld and then NSA Rice, along with the President and Vice President that we couldn't go in and just disband the Iraqi military completely or it would lead to the exact insurgency and sectarian violence problems we face today (it's both external terrorist organizations and internal Iraqi power struggles that we're combating). Rep. Darrell Issa[R-CA] was one of many--all veterans themselves--from both parties who made this warning clear to the administration prior to our invading Iraq.

The warnings were ignored. Nobody questioned if we could take the country, the fact that we did so as fast as we did is a testament to our service men and women.

But in failing to accept council from those who knew the region and its people to prepare for the post-war reconstruction and re-stabilization of the country in a practical manner, including leaving as much of the infrastructure and organization in place as possible to prevent the country from falling into chaos--something in my youth we used to call 'spacing out'--that was a grave mistake and has cost many American soldiers their lives now and fostered a larger quagmire than we needed to face, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some accountability somewhere for it.

I don't think the notions that we'd be greeted as liberators, or the war would pay for itself or even that Rumsfeld seemed to believe and publicly said the war wouldn't last 6 months are the big deal. It's what those notions stem from that causes me concern.

They were naturally derived from failing to give merit, for whatever reasons, to the council received on how to (and not to) execute the post-war phase by those who knew the region and people.

Whether it was Rumsfeld's sole decision to ignore that input or an administration wide choice doesn't matter either, as Sec. of Defense the buck stops with Rumsfeld on strategic military failures. So, just as it's reasonable to want accountability for the failures, it would seem reasonable to also say that accountability lies with the Sec. of Defense.

I certainly have no personal beef with Rumsfeld, and I enjoy his gruff and oft-candid on camera mannerisms most of the time. He simply holds the position that's supposed to fall on the sword when this sort of strategic failure occurs.

It's really pretty simple to me. If you're planning to go to war somewhere, and you know that because of the larger war on terror and the heated diplomatic climate of the region that you need both the war and the post-war phases to be completed in a precise and expedited manner, you give credence to the input of those who know and understand that region and its people best during the planning period. The exact opposite was done, it's cost numerous lives to American forces and the Iraqi people, common sense says it's extended the violence period much further than it needed to be and somebody needs step up and be accountable.

[lily]

Well said sbannon!

[Rider]

Lily wrote- I've asked you this now at least three times now, Rider.......can you give me an example of exactly what the Democrats have said no to in this war?

The Democrats strategy is to undermine the people's confidence in their leadership and the war effort. Of course they don't say "no" to the actual appropriations and authorizations, they know the score. But, the vitriol that they spew in public and the constant, unceasing denouncing and naysaying is helping the enemy turn the tide against us.

You seem to put an awful lot of power in the evils of the free press and the party that does not have control of either the house or the senate, instead of the man who is actually calling the shots over there.

What the Democrats are doing does not require a majority in either house or the big chair in the whitehouse. In fact their treachery is aimed at gaining exactly that. You've never heard me describe the free press as evil, but the guaranty of a free press goes hand in hand with the obligation to use that freedom responsibly.

If this ever turns around, then is it going to be because of the Democrats and the media........since we are to blame? Will we get the credit then?

Once again, I'm not talking about the conduct of the war.

[Rider]

Sbannon,
I won't go into detailed argument with your thoughts; I'll try to explain why I support Rumsfeld.
First, I disagree with your arguments. I think that a lot of what you talk of is the sort of half truths and deliberate misconceptions with which the left has poisoned the discussions on the war. I know you probably won't agree and that's OK.
Bush (like him or hate him) is the president. His choice for secretary of defense is Rumsfeld. I trust that he knows best. It's absurdly childish to think that anyone on this board has even a tiny percentage of the picture of this war. Wars never go as planned. Mistakes are made by every command in every battle. But, the left seizes on every mistake, real or contrived and parades it in front of the national and world media like a banner of ridicule and shame and with great acclaim. To what end? The left loves to point out the many nations in the world are against us, but the left contributes greatly to that end.

I support Rumsfeld because I support this president. I believe that we will win this war in the end. I truly believe that the only force that can bring defeat to this effort are those in our own country who are working so hard for it.

[lily]

Rider



The Democrats strategy is to undermine the people's confidence in their leadership and the war effort. Of course they don't say "no" to the actual appropriations and authorizations, they know the score. But, the vitriol that they spew in public and the constant, unceasing denouncing and naysaying is helping the enemy turn the tide against us.

So, in other words, we've given Bush everything he's asked for......up to and including wire tapping and torture and we're still underminding his war efforts? I suppose we could give up the right to dissent, but then that's just another freedom we're giving up and that means the terrorists wins..........see both sides can spout the propoganda......the only difference is......I don't believe either one. I haven't drank the kool-ade. I still belive that my right to free speach is the last right I'll give up.



What the Democrats are doing does not require a majority in either house or the big chair in the whitehouse. In fact their treachery is aimed at gaining exactly that. You've never heard me describe the free press as evil, but the guaranty of a free press goes hand in hand with the obligation to use that freedom responsibly.

Come right out and say the press is evil........no, I haven't heard you say that. What I have read you write though, is see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. An ill informed public is a happy public.



Once again, I'm not talking about the conduct of the war.

No, you're too busy blaming the opposing side.

[sbannon]

Sbannon,
I won't go into detailed argument with your thoughts; I'll try to explain why I support Rumsfeld.
First, I disagree with your arguments. I think that a lot of what you talk of is the sort of half truths and deliberate misconceptions with which the left has poisoned the discussions on the war. I know you probably won't agree and that's OK.
Bush (like him or hate him) is the president. His choice for secretary of defense is Rumsfeld. I trust that he knows best. It's absurdly childish to think that anyone on this board has even a tiny percentage of the picture of this war. Wars never go as planned. Mistakes are made by every command in every battle. But, the left seizes on every mistake, real or contrived and parades it in front of the national and world media like a banner of ridicule and shame and with great acclaim. To what end? The left loves to point out the many nations in the world are against us, but the left contributes greatly to that end.

I support Rumsfeld because I support this president. I believe that we will win this war in the end. I truly believe that the only force that can bring defeat to this effort are those in our own country who are working so hard for it.
Rider, you know (I hope) that I respect you on this forum so please don't take this as anything other than a friendly challenge--but you've stated that I'm posting or spreading "half truths" and "deliberate misconceptions". Could you please demonstrate that with any of the points I made? Because I've re-read my posting to be sure and I do believe that I can support every point I made. If I'm wrong on anything I posted I'd honestly like to know that and will offer the due apologies.

I understand wanting to trust and believe in the President. I want the same, however I'm a practical realist and honest with myself. I see a man in our President who is fighting a war in a "faith based" way. I don't say that as a negative, it's just what it is that I see.

I think he's a true believer. That he sees the world in black and white, good vs. evil. I'm not condemning him for that, but I think it's a naive way to manage a war and costly (to the ultimate level) for the men and women in uniform.

Let's be honest about things, the troops deserve that. In order to succeed in Iraq the President is going to need to reach across the aisle and get the leadership of both parties to agree to remove the politicking out of the war and work together to regain public support here at home, as well as redesigning a strategy other than "stay the course" for achieving victory in Iraq.

Stay the course is the dumbest strategy I've ever heard of when the facts so clearly show things are getting worse by the hour. It's like someone running into a brick wall over and over, and each time he hits it and falls backward his friend says "come on, go hit it again".

This is where placing faith over diplomatic skills becomes an obstacle. Repeatedly I've heard the President say it's either stay the course or cut and run. Why are those the only two choices? There are probably dozens or more different military and diplomatic roads yet to be explored with Iraq--but the President has decided (because he's the Decider) that it can only be his way or the highway. Well that's arrogant and narrow minded, and to me borders on criminal when I think of the troops dying each day because our President and other elected officials are drawing political lines of death in the sand with each other.

So I stand behind my opinion that Rumsfeld should go. That act would go a long way in reaching out across the aisle for the President, and then maybe our leaders--all of them of both parties--could get together and hash out something better than "stay the course" for achieving victory in Iraq. Again, I believe our troops deserve that.