Democrats don't want a tough leader - Rummy scares them

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Rumsfeld Has Proved His Mettle
Geoff Metcalf
Monday, April 17, 2006

"Men of strenuous minds and high ideals come forward. ... The attacks they sustain are more cruel than the collision of arms. ... Friends desert and despise them. ... They stand alone."

– Woodrow Wilson


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a strong personality, tasked (among other things greater and lesser) with managing a puzzle palace full of strong personalities and huge egos.

‘No plan survives first contact.' And hindsight is always 20/20.

Currently an excrement storm is swirling around the SecDef as a few retired general officers are grousing that their former boss should be pink-slipped.


President Bush is standing fast with his guy and says Rumsfeld has his full support and that Rummy's leadership is "exactly what is needed at this critical period."

Notwithstanding the president's support, a small collection of perfumed princes have taken umbrage with Don's management style and leadership. Hey, even before 9/11, everyone knew Don Rumsfeld could be an s.o.b. Fortune magazine had listed him as one of America's toughest bosses ... before he took over the Pentagon.

It is axiomatic that an alpha dog like Rumsfeld would p.o. other alpha dogs in uniform ... and he did/does.

Rumsfeld was a wresting champ in high school and at Princeton. He was a Navy pilot, Congress critter, U.S. ambassador to NATO, chief of staff for Gerald Ford and then Ford's secretary of defense. He was CEO of Fortune 500 companies – and always an effective, superior, tough bastard.

Prior to ascending to SecDef, his plans for morphing the Pentagon into a leaner, meaner, more efficient entity had institutional bureaucrats apoplectic.

One of his 154 "Rumsfeld's Rules" states: "Prune businesses, products, activities, people. Do it annually." (You can see the full list at www.defenselink.mil )

So a few retired generals have their panties in a bunch over what their boss did or didn't do and how he did or didn't do it ... big whoop!!

Retired two-star John Batiste said he thinks the clamor for Rumsfeld to step down is "happening for a reason." Yeah, because retired generals can say whatever they want. Batiste said, "We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, and who didn't build a strong team."

Wait one, General ... the same guy who ran Fortune 500 companies to billions, served as SecDef and a president's chief of staff and an ambassador to NATO doesn't understand leadership?

Another whiny two-star said Rumsfeld fostered an "atmosphere of arrogance." Gee, I saw the same thing at Fort Benning and Fort Bragg ... and it persists at Coronado, Quantico and other places where ‘Eagles Flock.'

One interesting sidebar Rumsfeld mentioned in the wake of the recent itching and moaning is significant on a couple of counts. He noted that there are 3,000 to 6,000 retired and active generals. The mere fact that there are so many flag officers hanging around supports my contention that there are way too many generals. Also, a statistical analysis of the number of general offices cheap-shotting the SecDef suggests that this noise is a minor minority report.

Civilian and military leaders have bumped heads before and will in the future.

Lincoln relieved General McClellan. Truman fired MacArthur. During Vietnam, generals were chronically grumpy about White House command and control of bombing missions.

Batiste referenced Gen. Eric Shinseki, who as then Army chief of staff told Congress a month before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that occupying the country could require "several hundred thousand troops," rather than the smaller force that did the job. Batiste snidely says: "And we all remember what happened to him. ... He was retired early, and the Secretary of Defense did not go to his retirement ceremony."

Hey, Shinseki was in deep kimchi before the "several hundred thousand troops" comment. He is the guy who gave the entire Army nifty black berets (previously the distinctive headgear of Army Rangers). Eric had ‘other' problems, which sealed his fate before his mouth wrote checks his body couldn't cash.

It is also no big surprise that the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Peter Pace, is the strongest defender in uniform of his boss. Hey, Rummy is his boss! "He does his homework. He works weekends, he works nights. People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld," Pace said.

Could Rumsfeld have done things differently? Sure. Should he be fired because he's a ‘hard Richard'? No!

Doctor Robert Jarvik (who invented the artificial heart) once said: "Leaders are visionsaries, with a poorly developed sense of fear, and no concept of the odds against them. They make things happen." That quote personifies Don Rumsfeld. If he is a tough, mean, arrogant, confident s.o.b., that is probably a good thing. If he upsets the institutional equilibrium of general Officers and Pentagon bureaucrats, HOOAH!
 
From what I see, I like Rumsfeld. But I dont know alot about what he has been doing to be honest.

As far as him being 'tough' - Let me quote Bill Maher ---

"If we're gonna let one man in the country not be a pussy, shouldnt it be the Secretary of Defense?"
 
Joeychgo said:
From what I see, I like Rumsfeld. But I dont know alot about what he has been doing to be honest.

As far as him being 'tough' - Let me quote Bill Maher ---

"If we're gonna let one man in the country not be a pussy, shouldnt it be the Secretary of Defense?"

Hear, hear. He's a true tough guy, reminds me a little of John Wayne.

I heard him talk on Rush's show today, and he gave Bush all kinds of credit. They both have the same attitude about kicking the a$$e$ of the terrorists.
 
fossten said:
Hear, hear. He's a true tough guy, reminds me a little of John Wayne.

I heard him talk on Rush's show today, and he gave Bush all kinds of credit. They both have the same attitude about kicking the a$$e$ of the terrorists.


Well, I dont agree with their thoughts, at least what they have said publically. As far as IM concerned, they should have gon into IRAN instead of IRAQ.

Even better. The trillion dollars spent on the war could have been spent to develop a fuel that could make us energy independant, and starve the terrorist countries.
 
Joeychgo said:
Well, I dont agree with their thoughts, at least what they have said publically. As far as IM concerned, they should have gon into IRAN instead of IRAQ.

Even better. The trillion dollars spent on the war could have been spent to develop a fuel that could make us energy independant, and starve the terrorist countries.

Don't get me started again. You and I both know that if your favorite Dem wackos would just let us drill for our own oil, we would not only be energy independent, but we would save billions in R&D b/c oil is SIMPLY CHEAPER.
 
fossten said:
Don't get me started again. You and I both know that if your favorite Dem wackos would just let us drill for our own oil, we would not only be energy independent, but we would save billions in R&D b/c oil is SIMPLY CHEAPER.


For now - maybe.

But your not thinking. If we came up with a fuel that was cheaper and not oil, the oil markets would CRASH and the troublesome, oil rich middle east countries wouldnt have any money coming in. Thus they couldnt fund terrorism.

They might have to go to work for a living instead of being bored and borrowing planes to fly into buildings.
 
Joeychgo said:
For now - maybe.

But your not thinking. If we came up with a fuel that was cheaper and not oil, the oil markets would CRASH and the troublesome, oil rich middle east countries wouldnt have any money coming in. Thus they couldnt fund terrorism.

They might have to go to work for a living instead of being bored and borrowing planes to fly into buildings.

Okay, but what's the point? Can you give me one reason why we need to save the oil instead of using it? What for? It's not running out; in fact, it's getting more plentiful.

And terrorists don't attack because they're bored. That's a lazy statement. They attack because they are crazy fanatics that have been brainwashed by their imams to hate the West.
 
Yes, we have an oil supply problem, but our own refinery capacity is an even bigger problem.
 
Ok, we have an oil pumping problem. One can only ratchet up supply so fast. Is it in the best interest of suplying nations to ratchet up supply? No, not when you can sell what you are currently producing at a superior price right now. Therein lies half the problem.

I did watch a special that made me think. That maybe the earth is producing its own oil supply. Something to do with the core and magna and all that. Interesting concept.
 

Members online

Back
Top