Thursday, August 23, 2012

The Dumbsfeld Doctrine

General Powell told Rumsfeld that he needed more troops. General Shinseki told Rumsfeld that he needed more troops. General Zinni told Rumsfeld that he needed more troops. General McCaffrey told Rumsfeld that he needed more troops. General Rhame told Rumsfeld that he needed more troops. General Nash told Rumsfeld that he needed more troops. Hell, folks, even Gomer Pyle, Sargent Carter, and the fellows from F Troop told the dude that he needed more troops. To call Mr. Rumsfeld the worst Secretary of Defense since Robert McNamara sounds just about right to me.

18 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

Actually the more appropriate title that expresses the jobs function is Secretary of War or perhaps De- Facto Head of the MIC.

BB-Idaho said...

McNamara's middle name was Strange.
..not sure Rumsfeld's excuse.

dmarks said...

BB: I didn't know that. I wonder if that played into the name of Dr. Strangelove at all?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

From what I can gather, gentleman, Mr. Rumsfeld had such a strong distaste for Colin Powell that he possibly wanted to veer away from the general's doctrine strictly out of spite. It would be Seinfeldesque if it wasn't so darn tragic.

Mordechai said...

Will, Mr Rumsfeld distaste for Gen Powell dates from the time of Nixon and Ford.

Robert Woodard's 2002 book Bush at War states;

, a rivalry developed between the two men and "Bush senior was convinced that Rumsfeld was pushing him out to the CIA to end his political career."

Gen Powell rose to prominence under GHW Bush's hand during both Reagan's and his own administrations, where Mr Rumsfeld had little visibility even though during Nixon and Fords admin Rumsfeld was a leading political figure called upon. .

Powell and Cheney didn't always see eye to eye either.

Especially during the 25% troop and 20% budget cuts to DOD proposed by Powell, approved by GHW Bush, guided by Powell after the first Gulf war. Cheney wanted a smaller 2% per year reduction.

The conflict can been seen to play out during the second Bush presidency, where Powell at state squared off against Cheney-Rumsfeld, and lost in the run up to and early operations of the invasion of Iraq, but how Rumsfeld was ousted after 2006 elections and Cheney was sidelined as the primary ideologue with former GHW Bush admin people like Bob Gates brought in.

So in effect neither Rumsfeld nor Cheney really liked Powell.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Thomas Ricks talks about this rivalry in "Fiasco", too.

w-dervish said...

Will: ...Rumsfeld had such a strong distaste for Colin Powell that he possibly wanted to veer away from the general's doctrine strictly out of spite.

This is why the bush administration didn't take the Clinton administration's warnings about bin Laden and al Qaeda seriously. Because it was the CLINTON administration warning them!

If they had 9/11 might have been prevented. Or if the SCOTUS hadn't annotited the presidential candidate who didn't win. President Gore would have definitely taken the al Qaeda threat seriously.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I wouldn't have minded a 3rd Clinton term.

dmarks said...

I see more of WD's fantasies in which ballots without votes (I.e. dimpled chads) are used against the wishes of the voters to annoint the actual loser as President.

Sorry, sore loser. But you are pretty funny in your resolute Bush derangement syndrome. Exactly like those who still insist Obama was born in Indonesia. You are all kindred spirits.

dmarks said...

Also, in regards to "This is why the bush administration didn't take the Clinton administration's warnings about bin Laden and al Qaeda seriously. Because it was the CLINTON administration warning them!"

The Clinton administration also ignored its so-called "Warnings". All the Bush administration did in this regard was continue Clinton policies.

It is easy to do as you do and cherry-pick to find some official somewhere who was sounding the alarm, but it turns out that Clinton turned a deaf ear to this, also. It is only in hindsight that things look a lot different.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Exactly like those who still insist Obama was born in Indonesia. You are all kindred spirits.

This is exactly like dmarks' wack-a-doodle claim that socialism is the "economic aspect" of fascism: wack-a-doodle. dmarks is a "kindred spirit" with the birthers in this regard (they both hold fast to wack-a-doodle theories).

As for me, I've denounced and made fun of the birthers on my blog frequently.


dmarks: It is easy to do as you do and cherry-pick to find some official somewhere who was sounding the alarm, but it turns out that Clinton turned a deaf ear to this, also.

Here dmarks proves that he is a REAL birther kindred spirit... he says, no matter the facts, he'll continue to believe the version of events he likes best... in this case the (incorrect) version of events that blames Clinton (even though Clinton warned bush about bin Laden) and lets the war criminal bush off the hook (even though he ignored Clinton's warning).

w-dervish said...

dmarks: I see more of WD's fantasies in which ballots without votes (I.e. dimpled chads) are used against the wishes of the voters to annoint the actual loser as President.

You're lying about me saying Gore won FL only if dimpled chads were counted. I've never made that argument. Gore won without counting dimpled chads. Although not counting them was definitely "against the wishes of the voters" because a dimple CLEARLY indicated who the person wished to vote for.

Yet dmarks is fine with taking their vote away because the voting machine didn't function properly. He justifies disenfranchising voters by lying and saying they "changed their minds". A completely laughable claim as almost everyone has their mind made up before entering the voting booth.

And NOBODY would almost vote for Gore and then change their mind and decide not to vote for president at all. If they had REALLY changed their mind their ballot would be dimpled for Gore AND punched for bush.

Also, dmarks is the sore loser, which is why he complains so loudly when I point out the truth about Gore winning.

dmarks said...

WD lied in an attempt to disenfranchise a large number of voters:

"Although not counting them was definitely "against the wishes of the voters" because a dimple CLEARLY indicated who the person wished to vote for."

Not at all. The instructions cleary say to punch out the chad, not bump it lightly. A dimple clearly indicates nothing other than "no vote here, move along".

"Also, dmarks is the sore loser, which is why he complains so loudly when I point out the truth about Gore winning"

Exactly like those who point out the truth that Obama was not born in the US. The real authorities make mincemeat of you armchair attorneys.

dmarks said...

"This is exactly like dmarks' wack-a-doodle claim that socialism is the "economic aspect" of fascism: wack-a-doodle."

I pointed this out. Socialism is all about the rulers taking economic power away from the people and concentrating in their hands.

This is part of most definitions of fascism.

The only wack-a-doodles are those like you who are passionate advocates of abuse of government power.

"Here dmarks proves that he is a REAL birther kindred spirit.......and lets the war criminal bush..."

There is no "war criminal Bush". You are referring to imaginary events involving imaginary beings.

No wonder you are the laughingstock of this blog.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I don't know if we'll ever know for certain who really won that Florida recount. I just got done reading the Wikipedia entry for "Florida recount 2000" and I'm actually more confused than before I read it. It sounds as if they had done the specific recount that Mr. Gore himself had requested, Mr. Bush still would have won BUT, had they done an entire statewide recount, there are some scenarios in which Mr. Gore could have won. I know that there was some confusion in certain counties where elderly Jewish people had accidentally voted for Buchanan and maybe that is one of the factors. Who knows.

dmarks said...

Will: the 'scenarios' were such that they amounted to the Gore team rolling the dice... demanding each time a recount a little different than the count before, hoping one would go their way.

And yes, proving the lie to Wd's claim of the Court 'annointing' you too read where Gore would have lost that count too.

As for the 'scenarios', we have seen WD here cling to the idea that ballots completely missing a Presidential vote can be imagineered/tampered into votes for Gore.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I guess that if the recount that Gore himself had requested still had Bush winning, it kinda' does settle it, huh?

dmarks said...

Will said: "I guess that if the recount that Gore himself had requested still had Bush winning, it kinda' does settle it, huh?"

Not to WD, who wanted a do-over for as many times as it would take

One often overlooked point is that the very first count, by machine, was the most accurate. For one thing, it was by machine (and didn't have the problems of human counts that took stray bumps as votes when they clearly were not.

And another was the ballot tampering. The counters made themselves voters when they punched out the chads during the later redundent recounts. The ballots ended up spoiled, and really, IMHO, not good for any sort of reliable count.