Supportive Bush?

A mellow place for Bobcats to discuss topics free of political posturing

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:28 am

Re/Max quote:
Kerry was blasted for not wanting to protect soldiers enough (body armour) in his campaign run.

Now we're hearing about Humvee's not having enough armour, and soldiers asking Rummy why (I liked his horrible response too :? ).
BAC quote:
From the sounds of it, Rumsfeld is the one who doesn't care about the troops. And from the sounds of the reaction at the press conference, a lot of the soldiers in the field tend to agree.
Can't...restrain myself...any...longer... :shock:

Did you "read" the Rumsfeld Q&A session, or did you watch video of it? I'm guessing you just read it, because if you had watched video of it, his answers were quite acceptable.

Some indisputable facts:
1. The Army--and Air Force and Marine Corps--own a lot of HMMWVs.
2. Those HMMWVs were bought long before there was any thought to urban combat on a wide scale.
3. The procurement process in the military is a long one--don't blame us, blame Congress for the Programming, Procurement and Budgetary System (PPBS) confines.
4. Locally procured armor of whatever flavor is quicker to buy than ordering it through official channels.

These facts have collided in the urban combat environment of Iraq, and make for good stories about how "The President <or, alternatively, The Pentagon> isn't supporting the war effort," when in fact it's a simple matter of current warfighting needs outpacing the (admittedly) obsolete Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps doctrine under which the HMMWVs were bought.

The military has shifted procurement priorities. Case in point, this CNN article states the production of armored HMMWVs is up 3000% from August of 2003 (450 per month now, 15 per month then).

Sorry for the long post, but this is the long version of Secretary Rumsfeld's answer when he said "as you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:09 am

It still all comes down to us not being prepared for the kind of fight we find outselves in, right (that seemed to be the gripe of the soldiers)? That's poor planning, and does back up the theory that Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't quite understand what they were getting the military into, and would have been well served to listen to those people who were telling them the bad news before we went in (as opposed to firing and/or ignoring them).

Did you see the McCain story today?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141374,00.html

He's not impressed with Rumfeld, either.

All that being said, I just hope we are learning from our mistakes and that we aren't doomed to repeat them. That's the great gift that hindsight (history) has to offer us. If we do that, hopefully it will go that much further towards finishing this job, turning Iraq over to a sovereign government and beginning a groundswell of democracy in the middle east that will rid the world of the terrorist threat posed by the extremists who are being cultivated by the greedy regimes currently in place. If only oil wasn't so valuable, we could just ignore the entire region and let them beat up on each other all they want....

If you happen to see beaker around anytime soon, ask him to follow up on his Carter comments -- I'm still curious about that one.
Last edited by SonomaCat on Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:23 am, edited 3 times in total.



User avatar
El_Gato
Member # Retired
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: Kalispell

Post by El_Gato » Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:46 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:It still all comes down to us not being prepared for the kind of fight we find outselves in, right (that seemed to be the gripe of the soldiers)? That's poor planning, and does back up the theory that Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't quite understand what they were getting the military into, and would have been well served to listen to those people who were telling them the bad news before we went in (as opposed to firing and/or ignoring them).
Once again, bay, you prove that your hindsight truly is perfect!

Tell you what, you let Bush & Co. have UNLIMITED funds and I guarantee you that they CAN & WILL build us a military force with NOTHING BUT THE BEST and one that CAN FIGHT IN ANY SITUATION.

Oh, btw; when we start this "ready for anything" military push, please don't complain to me about the cost or the deficit. Again, the liberal mind-set bites us in the arse: "I don't want to build a war machine when we aren't at war, but I will sure as hell bitch about it when we don't have EVERY tool we'd like once we actually DO find ourselves at war..."

Sorry bay, but you just can't have your cake & eat it too in this case...

BTW, in case you missed it, that "question" was NOT a "gripe of the soldiers". It was the gripe of a newspaper reporter who convinced a soldier to ask it, OBVIOUSLY to put Rummy on the spot...
Last edited by El_Gato on Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.


Grizzlies: 2-5 when it matters most

User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:45 am

BAC - next time a Federal beauracracy plans more than 1 year in advance for all possible contingencies, especially the unknown ones, you let me know.

It would have been nice to plan for these contingencies prior to invasion, but you expect way too much of the Pentagon. In all major conflicts, the US military has never been completely prepared prior to engagement. If you read your war history, you will have to conclude that ultimate victory stemmed from the innovations, strategical and technological, that were made during the conflict, not prior to it.



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7177
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Post by iaafan » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:00 am

El Gato: Yes, I agree. There are similarities between Clinton and Flynt. And that could actually be a compliment for Clinton in some ways as it is truly a compliment for Bush to be compared to Hitler -- in some ways. I saw Flynt as one of the great freedom fighters in America.

Flynt can also be compard to Hitler in that they are both self-made. Bush can't be compared to either in that category as he was, as they say, "Born on third base, but thought he hit a triple."



User avatar
El_Gato
Member # Retired
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: Kalispell

Post by El_Gato » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:04 am

iaafan wrote:...I saw Flynt as one of the great freedom fighters in America...
Right up there with Washington, Jefferson, and Martin Luther King eh?

I love it when people try to do this. Make a silly comment in an effort to further their point. iaa, if you truly believe the quote you made, do you tell your children (or others if you don't have any) about the great Mr. Flynt? Do you commonly preach to others about the positive attributes of "the Great Pornographer" as an American Icon? And do you honestly lump him in with the TRULY "great freedom fighters" in American history? If so, you are terribly misguided.

I don't care if Hitler cured cancer; his methodic attempt at eliminating an ENTIRE RACE of people overrides ANY & EVERY good or effective thing he accomplished. I'm so sick of you liberals trying to make this "Bush is Hitler-lite" attitude acceptable or non-insulting. "Well, he IS a lot like Adolph, except for the whole Holocaust THING...". Comments like that are NOT IN ANY WAY meant as an honest comparison between the 2; they are meant ENTIRELY as an insult, an attack, and as an attempt to simply agitate your opponents; to "rattle your sabre" in a manner that is sure to get attention.

Please stop trying to defend such a warped and sick position that is so obviously insincere...
Last edited by El_Gato on Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:07 am, edited 2 times in total.


Grizzlies: 2-5 when it matters most

iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7177
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Post by iaafan » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:15 pm

What made Flynt great was that he took an opinion that wasn't popular and carried it forward in a way that caused many to change their minds, not so much about what he was representing in pornography, but what he represented in the American Way. It's that dedication to a cause that this country was built on that is inspiring. We are FREE to view porn and if my children, wife, in-laws or any family questions that I will make a reference to Flynt, even if they totally disagree. No I don't preach, but I'm talking about because --- HEY --- you brought it up!!!

Your comments on the Bush is Hitler-lite plays right into what was one of Hitlers themes, which was denying people from looking at history because they may use it against him. If you don't really want people to make that comparison then come up with all the differnces and show how they outweight what is common between the two.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:48 pm

El_Gato wrote:BTW, in case you missed it, that "question" was NOT a "gripe of the soldiers". It was the gripe of a newspaper reporter who convinced a soldier to ask it, OBVIOUSLY to put Rummy on the spot...
I'm sure that's the way it is being defended, and a reporter did plant the question, I know. However, that doesn't diminish the fact that the troops applauded the question and that the soldier was more than happy to ask it. The only manipulation occurred by the reporter making sure that the soldier was chosen to ask a question. In other words, they slipped one by the monitors, who would have tried to screen such non-happy imagery.

I'm also not saying that Rumsfeld should have anticipated every minute thing that went wrong. However, a lot of people in high places (military and State Department) had warned that we weren't preparing and planning in the proper way for this conflict, and their opinions were ignored (and they were often fired). If those voices had been listened to, things would have gone much better, and we wouldn't have to be having these conversations.

Hey, I liked Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld at one time as well... until I lost faith in their ability to consistently make good decisions on behalf of the country.



User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:13 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
I'm also not saying that Rumsfeld should have anticipated every minute thing that went wrong. However, a lot of people in high places (military and State Department) had warned that we weren't preparing and planning in the proper way for this conflict, and their opinions were ignored (and they were often fired). If those voices had been listened to, things would have gone much better, and we wouldn't have to be having these conversations.
Oh, c'mon, BAC...those same warnings are the same warnings that were communicated before EVERY major conflict.

To put it another way: If 'we' could plan for every major turning point in the stock, bond, or commodity markets, there would NOBODY earning less than 7 figures per year - in the world.

There is a point where reasonable planning ends, and 'failsafe guarantees' begin.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:20 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
I'm also not saying that Rumsfeld should have anticipated every minute thing that went wrong. However, a lot of people in high places (military and State Department) had warned that we weren't preparing and planning in the proper way for this conflict, and their opinions were ignored (and they were often fired). If those voices had been listened to, things would have gone much better, and we wouldn't have to be having these conversations.
Oh, c'mon, BAC...those same warnings are the same warnings that were communicated before EVERY major conflict.

To put it another way: If 'we' could plan for every major turning point in the stock, bond, or commodity markets, there would NOBODY earning less than 7 figures per year - in the world.

There is a point where reasonable planning ends, and 'failsafe guarantees' begin.
If Powell had been in charge of this mission, things would have gone much, much smoother. I understand that it is easy to criticize in hindsight. However, I don't think we should go the opposite direction and give blanket forgiveness to the decision-makers, especially when they chose to ignore better information.

If Cheney didn't owe his career to Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld would have been fired by now. The fact that he is still around is due solely to politics and not to job performance. We could have done much better, yet we choose not to. That's the undercurrent that is drawing comments like those that McCain and others in the Senate are making.



WYCAT
Member # Retired
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

Post by WYCAT » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:31 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
I'm also not saying that Rumsfeld should have anticipated every minute thing that went wrong. However, a lot of people in high places (military and State Department) had warned that we weren't preparing and planning in the proper way for this conflict, and their opinions were ignored (and they were often fired). If those voices had been listened to, things would have gone much better, and we wouldn't have to be having these conversations.
Oh, c'mon, BAC...those same warnings are the same warnings that were communicated before EVERY major conflict.

To put it another way: If 'we' could plan for every major turning point in the stock, bond, or commodity markets, there would NOBODY earning less than 7 figures per year - in the world.

There is a point where reasonable planning ends, and 'failsafe guarantees' begin.
Couldn't agree more BB&G. I recently watched a documentary on the D-Day invasion during WWII and there were a ton of people saying it was a bad idea, couldn't be done, etc. and we know how that turned out. Same thing on the Confederate army forcing the battle at Gettysburg with the Union troops. If they had listened to the people who recommended against that choice we may have two separate countries right now. Like anything in life there are always going to be people who are against a decision just waiting in the wings to say I told you so when it doesn't go exactly as planned.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:45 pm

WYCAT wrote:
Bleedinbluengold wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
I'm also not saying that Rumsfeld should have anticipated every minute thing that went wrong. However, a lot of people in high places (military and State Department) had warned that we weren't preparing and planning in the proper way for this conflict, and their opinions were ignored (and they were often fired). If those voices had been listened to, things would have gone much better, and we wouldn't have to be having these conversations.
Oh, c'mon, BAC...those same warnings are the same warnings that were communicated before EVERY major conflict.

To put it another way: If 'we' could plan for every major turning point in the stock, bond, or commodity markets, there would NOBODY earning less than 7 figures per year - in the world.

There is a point where reasonable planning ends, and 'failsafe guarantees' begin.
Couldn't agree more BB&G. I recently watched a documentary on the D-Day invasion during WWII and there were a ton of people saying it was a bad idea, couldn't be done, etc. and we know how that turned out. Same thing on the Confederate army forcing the battle at Gettysburg with the Union troops. If they had listened to the people who recommended against that choice we may have two separate countries right now. Like anything in life there are always going to be people who are against a decision just waiting in the wings to say I told you so when it doesn't go exactly as planned.
But... what if Rumsfeld really did/is screwing up? Are you guys wed to him out of a "glass is half full/support our administration" mindset (which I completely understand, as I normally resent criticism of public figures as well out of my generally optimistic outlook that they will do better in the future), or do you sincerely have faith in his abilities? I personally would simply rather we have the people in there who can make the best decisions so that we could have/can win this thing as soon as possible and then get out (to the extent practical). I just want the people running the show to be the best ones to make decisions to give our troops the best chance for success. I just don't think Rumsfeld/Cheney have proven to be the tacticians that we need.



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7177
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Post by iaafan » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:50 pm

Rumsfeld is like Earle Solomonson. Sure, we all want/wanted him to do well, but he just isn't/wasn't doing well.



WYCAT
Member # Retired
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

Post by WYCAT » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:55 pm

iaafan wrote:Rumsfeld is like Earle Solomonson. Sure, we all want/wanted him to do well, but he just isn't/wasn't doing well.
I love your analogies: Rumsfeld is Solomonson, Bush is Hitler, Flynt is George Washington, .......

I also question whether you or "we all" wanted him do to well.



WYCAT
Member # Retired
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

Post by WYCAT » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:02 pm

To answer your question BAC, my support of the administration is largely as you stated "glass is half full" ideology. I hate it when leaders (be it coaches or presidents) are criticized for every decision and it is almost always along party lines in the political arena. Looking back and saying see there were a number of people who thought your decision was the wrong one and asking how you could have been so stupid as to not listen to them is worthless. I am not the biggest fan of George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld or a number of his senior staff but they are our current administration and I don't see a lot of value in Bush bashing on a continuous basis.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:07 pm

WYCAT wrote:To answer your question BAC, my support of the administration is largely as you stated "glass is half full" ideology. I hate it when leaders (be it coaches or presidents) are criticized for every decision and it is almost always along party lines in the political arena. Looking back and saying see there were a number of people who thought your decision was the wrong one and asking how you could have been so stupid as to not listen to them is worthless. I am not the biggest fan of George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld or a number of his senior staff but they are our current administration and I don't see a lot of value in Bush bashing on a continuous basis.
I don't agree with Bush-bashing for the sake of bashing (meaning when there is no goal of accomplishing anything constructive and it is just done out of spite), either, so I totally understand what you are saying. Right now, though, there is a bit of a groundswell among many political types to at least get rid of Rumsfeld and replace him with someone who might do a better job going forward. To the extent that this could be done, I think it could serve us well to be assertive in speaking our thoughts on the topic.



User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:56 pm

[quote="Bay Area Cat

But... what if Rumsfeld really did/is screwing up? Are you guys wed to him out of a "glass is half full/support our administration" mindset (which I completely understand, as I normally resent criticism of public figures as well out of my generally optimistic outlook that they will do better in the future), or do you sincerely have faith in his abilities? I personally would simply rather we have the people in there who can make the best decisions so that we could have/can win this thing as soon as possible and then get out (to the extent practical). I just want the people running the show to be the best ones to make decisions to give our troops the best chance for success. I just don't think Rumsfeld/Cheney have proven to be the tacticians that we need.[/quote]

To coin a phrase...you know Rumsfeld is screwing up if his lips move!! bada bing!!!

Politicians need to stick with making policy. Too much direct involvement by politicians (inlcuding Powell) always has had bad results in war. When politicians get involved in tactics - we're screwed. The best thing politicians can do is make policy and then shut the hell up and let the military do their job.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:15 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:To coin a phrase...you know Rumsfeld is screwing up if his lips move!! bada bing!!!

Politicians need to stick with making policy. Too much direct involvement by politicians (inlcuding Powell) always has had bad results in war. When politicians get involved in tactics - we're screwed. The best thing politicians can do is make policy and then shut the hell up and let the military do their job.
Well, yeah. That's true. Which is why it would have been nice if Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush hadn't fired/silenced all of the military folks (including Powell, who at least had a little experience in the area) who were trying to tell them the right way to do things. Instead, we had the politicians calling the shots on the tactics. And the results were consistent with your statement.
Last edited by SonomaCat on Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:08 pm

Which is why it would have been nice if Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush hadn't fired/silenced all of the military folks (including Powell, who at least had a little experience in the area) who were trying to tell them the right way to do things.
Why is everyone convinced that Secretary Powell was fired? Is it possible that he just decided that since 40 or so years of his life was given to his country, now he wants to spend some time with his wife, kids and grandchildren?



User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:15 pm

Right now, though, there is a bit of a groundswell among many political types to at least get rid of Rumsfeld and replace him with someone who might do a better job going forward.
While I agree that Secretary Rumsfeld has the reputation of being difficult to work with and a stickler for detail, he is completely the right person for the job of transforming our military from on designed to fight an "force on force" batter to one that is designed to win "maneuver battle." Witness his cancellation of the Army's Paladin heavy artillery, Comanche helicopter, and his consternation of the Air Force's F/A-22--weapons systems all designed to fight a threat that is extinct.

Radical change like that does not happen overnight, and we are well to remember that.



Post Reply