GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Rumsfeld leaves his successor in a difficult position

• 20366
  

  I think that "taxpayer" is quite mistaken in assuming that Donald Rumsfeld has simply been at the president's beck and call, simply following orders. In fact, I think it is more likely that the president has been tagging after Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld began this Iraqi venture with enormous bravado and confidence that simply radiated. But as one watched, that confidence seemed instead to be, or become, a cock sure insolence, a military "snobbery," you might say, and a misplaced snobbery that was.

  Rumsfeld morphed (or always was, and I was fooled) into a caricature of a kid playing with toy soldiers, so many pieces of the game just tossed to the side without any thought. My admiration of the man became more guarded -- then melted away. I found myself looking at a self-absorbed, very cocky man in a position of incredible power, which made him a ghastly face of the United States. What harm he has done to this country. I find his sad little farewell trip to Iraq to "thank the troops" exceptionally perverse; the man seems to have little, if any, conscience.

  I don't believe for a moment that he was simply Bush's instrument; Rumsfeld did what he wanted, when he wanted, and how he wanted. How glad I am that he is gone. How I wish he had never been handed the title and the power commensurate with the position of secretary of Defense.

  Kitty Meeker Posted December 26, 2006 12:45 AM
• 20277
  

  Taxpayer's message was proven correct today. This evening's news report says that Bush has tasked Gates to develop a plan to increase the size of the military. Bush didn't ask Gates for his opinion on whether or not we need a bigger military (Gates is only the secretary of Defense so his opinion carries no weight). In fact, Bush is well aware that our military is stretched so thin it cannot handle a "surge in troops" in Iraq. If the military can't handle a surge then Bush must increase the size of the military to protect his legacy. You see a surge can not be sustained unless you have more troops (bigger military). It is clear as glass that Bush not only plans to "surge" our troops but also plans to send more and more as we build-up the military. Bush deliberately telegraphs his plans so the plans are easier to accept by us "idiots" (voters).

  I still don't understand how we can stand by and wait for King George to bless us with his new Iraq plan when Bush has already articulated everything by telegraph? Losing is not an option (no troop withdrawals), send more troops now and further over-extend our military (surge), spend more of our taxes to increase the size of our military to save Bush's legacy (continue losing Americans in Iraq), send our newly trained "bigger military" to relieve the surged troops so the war can continue until Bush is out of office. What happens then? Well we all know how politicians do -- once Bush is out of office it becomes someone else's war to lose!

  I wish someone out there in cyberspace would defend what Bush has done. There must be at least three people out there who can stomach losing our brave soldiers day after day?

  Un-Civil Servant

  GovExec.com reader Posted December 19, 2006 8:23 PM
• 20251
  

  James, when are you press guys going to learn that the actions of Rummy were directed by the president and vice president! Rummy had little leeway to do as he pleased. Rummy was there to implement the Bush policy even if he disagreed with it. Likewise, Powell had to implement Bush policy or quit as well. Powell's policies were just as bad as Rummy's. The press has to stop shooting the messenger and go after the president. According to the constitution the president is the chief of foreign relations and policy. The United States has very few good relationships in foreign affairs and no stated policy that assures a continued influence from the United States based on its moral and ethical principles. Bush violated one of our most sacred principles when he initiated an unprovoked attack on Iraq for no good reason! The current administration is immoral and unethical and cannot be allowed to continue free of press criticism. Gates is a Bush man and will do what Bush tells him to do, and don't forget it! Now is the perfect time for Bush to change course and blame it on Gates.

  Taxpayer Posted December 19, 2006 6:42 AM
• 20239
  

  I disagree with this article -- Gates is not in a difficult position at all. All Gates will do (and has already done) is agree with Bush. Yes he told Congress we were not winning the war but now he has changed his tune. Gates now says that losing in Iraq is not an option. Bush says that losing in Iraq is not an option. Bush stated during numerous news conferences (prior to the ISG revelation) "We will not and can not lose in Iraq." Bush also stated (before ISG report) he would listen and consider all suggestions. Bush lied!!! If Bush truly planned to listen to and consider all recommendations he would not have pre-empted the ISG report by saying (on numerous occasions) "Losing is not an option." If we pull out, we lose, so all the recommendations to withdraw will never be "considered."

  As for Gates, like Rummy, he serves at the pleasure of the president. These sick, demented old men are causing the death of innocent soldiers and civilians. The majority of Americans who voted for Democrats wasted their votes because Bush will do as he desires, he is the "decider." Bush's legacy is Iraq, he who stands in Bush's way will surely be trampled.

  Un-Civil Servant

  GovExec.com reader Posted December 18, 2006 5:02 PM