What does it take?

678 Views 26 Replies 9 Participants Last post by justinv, Dec 16, 2004

justinv

Discussion Starter · Dec 13, 2004

I have a question for the staunch Bush supporters here. What would Rumsfeld have to do, for something resembling accountability to kick in and force his resignation. He came out and basically told the troops "tough titty" regarding armor. He LIED about not being able to get more armor made (days after his comment that it was a "matter of physics" two suppliers came forth and said, they were simply waiting for orders from the Pentagon to make more armor.)
It just seems that if this were a Democrat in office, the White House and Secretary would be under seige. If Rumsfeld had started crapping in his hand and throwing it at the troops would that do it? Just curious. :808993-banghead:

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

thenightangel

· #2 · Dec 13, 2004

Unfortunately Rumsfield has no accountability for his actions as far as I can tell. Although I voted for Bush, There's a serious Nixonian shadow hanging over this crew, but I doubt if there's any wrongdoing that would get any of these people in trouble, ever.

justinv

Discussion Starter · #3 · Dec 13, 2004

[ QUOTE ]
thenightangel said:
Unfortunately Rumsfield has no accountability for his actions as far as I can tell. Although I voted for Bush, There's a serious Nixonian shadow hanging over this crew, but I doubt if there's any wrongdoing that would get any of these people in trouble, ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I am reading your post, I am listening to CNN saying that Army/National Guard troops are roughly 1/3 equipped with correctly armored vehicles. And because of the nature of the Insurgency, support troops are more likely to be attacked than so-called "front line" troops. This is inexcusable after a year and half long occupation. It seems some Republicans are coming out and calling for Rumsfeld's resignation now as well.

thenightangel

· #4 · Dec 13, 2004

I wouldn't be surprised if the new house and senate sainted him instead. and yes, sarcasm is intended.

justinv

Discussion Starter · #5 · Dec 13, 2004

[ QUOTE ]
thenightangel said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the new house and senate sainted him instead. and yes, sarcasm is intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't understand why the Republicans wave the flag all day, and scream "Support the Troops!", but when the Secretary of Defense dumps on them, they just turn away and whistle. To me, that is the most disrespectful thing you can do to your troops, allow inept leadership to squander their lives. :flame:

wingswheels

· #6 · Dec 13, 2004

but at least gays can't marry :rolling:

shows what all those morals are good for

Tramp4life

· #7 · Dec 13, 2004

Whoo...there's a lot of estrogen in here. Oh, wait, it's just liberal :808875-bs:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

justinv

Discussion Starter · #8 · Dec 13, 2004

[ QUOTE ]
Tramp4life said:
Whoo...there's a lot of estrogen in here. Oh, wait, it's just liberal :808875-bs:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[/ QUOTE ]
Way to address the issue there TFL. :808993-banghead:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. :808918-ot:
Doesn't it bother any of you that the best response anyone in the Bush government can come up with is dismissive remarks and liberal jabs? :flame:

thenightangel

· #9 · Dec 13, 2004

[ QUOTE ]
Tramp4life said:
Whoo...there's a lot of estrogen in here. Oh, wait, it's just liberal :808875-bs:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, I didn't know conservativism's great traitor, L.B.J., and classical liberalism's saviour, Nixon, were so respected amongst the neo-cons. :grin:

JoeFriday

· #10 · Dec 14, 2004

I honestly think Rumsfeld has been much more damaging to the American Military than anything Osama or the rest of the terror wannabes could ever do. Stop loss program till hell freezes over? That's another morale booster.

And yet they're spending SIX BILLION on the useless V-22 osprey, TEN BILLION on a antiballistic missle system to be deployed when it's not even designed yet. But they can't seem to find money for things like TRUCKS that work, armor for vehicles, body armor, and other things that just aren't "sexy" enough to be funded.

It would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.

You can't shake the absolute blind faith a Bush supporter has with mere facts.

wingswheels

· #11 · Dec 14, 2004

there is nothing I would love more then to go into my recruiter and sign up for PLC Avaition, problem is I dont have anyfaith in this adminstration,

justinv

Discussion Starter · #12 · Dec 14, 2004

Looks like John Wayne McCain isn't so pleased either.
Click

wingswheels

· #13 · Dec 14, 2004

now theres a president I would have some faith in, although ive heard hes done some stupid things too, but no word on what they were, so as for now, I still would support him, I would have votted for him in 2000, if i could have voted and had he been a runner

Tramp4life

· #14 · Dec 14, 2004

For the record, I'm not a conservative...I'm a Libertarian. But, I make fun of you because Liberals are a mystery to me. They sit there and bash the administration for spending ANY money on the military...then, they have a fit when the military isn't equipped to do its job.
For the record, CONGRESS, not Rummy, provides cash for armor and the like. And, for the record, you can't just acquire armor instantly. I work military budget. The items we have now, we planned on buying 2 years ago. We've only been doing this war thing since 2002, and we had to get emergency appropriations to ensure we could pay for everything. So, if it's anyone's fault there isn't enough armor in the guard, it's THEIR fault 'cause they decided to spend their money on something else and didn't foresee this contingency.
You liberals make statements not based in fact, and expect people to argue them intelligently. Your assumptions are wrong! Your arguments are invalid!

Conservatives aren't actually as bad as liberals in my opinion. At least THEY (again, not me) don't try to take all my tax money (exept for now a days in war time).

So, how can you not hold Rummy accountable? Because he is the CEO of one hell of a machine, and it's not ENTIRELY his fault.

See less See more

MyKa

· #15 · Dec 14, 2004

[ QUOTE ]
Tramp4life said:
For the record, I'm not a conservative...I'm a Libertarian. But, I make fun of you because Liberals are a mystery to me. They sit there and bash the administration for spending ANY money on the military...then, they have a fit when the military isn't equipped to do its job.
For the record, CONGRESS, not Rummy, provides cash for armor and the like. And, for the record, you can't just acquire armor instantly. I work military budget. The items we have now, we planned on buying 2 years ago. We've only been doing this war thing since 2002, and we had to get emergency appropriations to ensure we could pay for everything. So, if it's anyone's fault there isn't enough armor in the guard, it's THEIR fault 'cause they decided to spend their money on something else and didn't foresee this contingency.
You liberals make statements not based in fact, and expect people to argue them intelligently. Your assumptions are wrong! Your arguments are invalid!

Conservatives aren't actually as bad as liberals in my opinion. At least THEY (again, not me) don't try to take all my tax money (exept for now a days in war time).

So, how can you not hold Rummy accountable? Because he is the CEO of one hell of a machine, and it's not ENTIRELY his fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

See less See more

justinv

Discussion Starter · #16 · Dec 14, 2004

[ QUOTE ]

So, how can you not hold Rummy accountable? Because he is the CEO of one hell of a machine, and it's not ENTIRELY his fault.

[/ QUOTE ]
TFL-
Exactly, he is CEO. It is HIS responsibility to know what is done on his watch. The buck stops there. This was a war of CHOICE. There was no immediate need for this war. This is the point that Republican senators (who voted FOR the war we are making). We could have waited til we were prepared. We could have HAD A F*CKING PLAN. But instead they wanted to be cowboys. :flame:

You claim that armor doesn't come instantly, and that budgeting needs to occur years in advance. Well, strange how once this news came to light. There was IMMEDIATE action from congress to get that extra armor. I just try to imagine how slighted I would feel if I were there being told to just deal with the situation, when it was fixable.

Tramp4life

· #17 · Dec 14, 2004

You say NOW that it was a war of choice, but back then, people were SCREAMING for immediate action! In fact, people were SCREAMING because he waited and didn't start bombing someone (anyone) immediately!
Plus, the Guard and Reserve had every chance to put in a request for more armor during the wartime supplemental. You can blame Rummy all you want, but I'm telling you, you only know 10% of the story.
He's done enough that was definitely his fault...you can blame him for that. I don't accept that this was all his doing.

M

PorradaVFR

· #18 · Dec 14, 2004

[ QUOTE ]
Tramp4life said:
You say NOW that it was a war of choice, but back then, people were SCREAMING for immediate action! In fact, people were SCREAMING because he waited and didn't start bombing someone (anyone) immediately!

[/ QUOTE ]

Who? Afghanistan, the only country aside from Saudi Arabia with direct links to Al Qaeda, had already been attacked. Nobody aside from the administration was talking about Iraq as an immediate threat.

But I suppose you're right about Rumsfeld not having the complete picture. I mean, how's he supposed to know anything? He's just a PR guy.

See less See more

justinv

Discussion Starter · #19 · Dec 14, 2004

I agree with Porrada. Only the administration was pushing for war in Iraq. The populace and the rest of the world thought and think we were nuts for going in there. I'm not claiming to know the "whole story", but I know the Republicans would have lynched a Democratic Sec Def, that did what Rumsfeld has. TFL, who is accountable? And if not Rumsfeld, is there anything he IS accountable for? So far not a single "non-liberal" has addressed my original post.

Kricket

· #20 · Dec 14, 2004

[ QUOTE ]
Tramp4life said:
You say NOW that it was a war of choice, but back then, people were SCREAMING for immediate action! In fact, people were SCREAMING because he waited and didn't start bombing someone (anyone) immediately!

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the public's fault for being easily manipulated - in this case, by terrorists. We took a blow and every non-temperate Jack and Jill wanted revenge. Such is the way of human society. So the real question on that point is whether our leaders were wise enough to take the time to do things correctly, or did they jump on the lynching wagon and head off to war rashly.

Personally, I think the Democrats and Republicans both called for war at the time because it was the politically-savvy thing to do. They took the bait for a quick boost in the polls, but at the price they're paying now.

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.