I give credit where credit is due: Donald Rumsfeld

[KevinthePRF]

Rumsfeld has been one of the more arrogant pieces in the Bush administration's aggressive foreign policy. And I'm very critical of him. Today on Larry King he stated that he attempted twice to turn in his resignation in wake of the Abu Ghraib mess.

If this indeed is the case, it eases slightly one of my biggest criticisms of this administration. And that being zero responsibility for our government's actions. Mostly in the prison case, which I didn't gripe too much about, and other issues all this administration and members of this board sink into is finger pointing and conspiracy theories(see: buried in Syria).

But Rumsfeld was willing to stand up and take responsibility in this case, at least until Bush said not to take responsibility, we can cast blame solely on ground zero. Hopefully more will take on Rumsfeld's example at a government level.

[Cdowwe]

I agree.

[flyingtiger1013]

Rumsfeld is a good man. I like him. Hard as nails. My brother-in-law was on his security detail and was very complementary of him.

[prophet]

to bad kerry won't Appauligize for the things he said about nam and its veterens

:doh:

[SnyderShrugged]

Good middle ground post Kevin.

I know it's not always easy to do, and I understand you views.

Good job man.

[TheKurp]

I'm guessing here that Rumsfeld's resignation wasn't accepted because the Administration felt to do so would give the world the impression that there was a lack of accountability and incompetence in the handling of Iraq.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by TheKurp

I'm guessing here that Rumsfeld's resignation wasn't accepted because the Administration felt to do so would give the world the impression that there was a lack of accountability and incompetence in the handling of Iraq.

your view is out of style. Find new cheese.

(Or Maybe he was seen to have done a pretty good job overall and that resigning over Abu Graib would just justify lefy rants to the public?)

[Henry]

If Rumsfeld did offer his resignation, and I have no reason to believe he's lying when he says he did, then yes, I have newfound respect for him also.

But IMHO, Bush should have then accepted it.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by KevinthePRF

Rumsfeld has been one of the more arrogant pieces in the Bush administration's aggressive foreign policy. And I'm very critical of him. Today on Larry King he stated that he attempted twice to turn in his resignation in wake of the Abu Ghraib mess.

If this indeed is the case, it eases slightly one of my biggest criticisms of this administration. And that being zero responsibility for our government's actions. Mostly in the prison case, which I didn't gripe too much about, and other issues all this administration and members of this board sink into is finger pointing and conspiracy theories(see: buried in Syria).

But Rumsfeld was willing to stand up and take responsibility in this case, at least until Bush said not to take responsibility, we can cast blame solely on ground zero. Hopefully more will take on Rumsfeld's example at a government level.

I'm with Henry on this one. IF he did offer his resignation, then yes, he moves up one notch in my book. He's above pond scum, but below an amoeba.

Kidding aside, Bush should have taken his resignation and moved forward. It shows a lack of good leadership in Bush, you have to know when to cut your buddies loose, no matter what. That was definately the time and place for Rummy to go.

[Tarhog]

If Rumsfeld did offer up his resignation, I seriously doubt he did it as an acknowledgement of his own personal failure. He probably did it because he knew the enormous political liability that 'scandal' was becoming, and was willing to 'take one for the team'. The only ones 'responsible' for the supposed 'torture' that occured were the armed forces personnel that participated in it, and the officers and staff NCO's who either tolerated it, or were so hands-off they weren't aware it was going on.

During my time in the service, I came to be all too familiar with what the military calls the 'zero defects' mentality. Zero defects essentially means that no mistake is tolerated. Maximum punishment occurs for any infraction, and its not just the individual who committed the infraction. Its driven by all the wrong forces - political correctness, ambition (you don't get promoted if you make a mistake, and if those under your command make a mistake, they must be appropriately 'purged'). I'll give you an example. During my service time, the 'Tailhook' scandal broke. There were a bunch of drunken aviators at a conference who acted out, mistreated some women, etc....bad stuff of course. But it resulted in every single service member in every branch of the military receiving 'sensitivity training', including every all-male combat arms unit in the Marine Corps. It was insane.

I'm not equating torture (or whatever descriptor you feel appropriate to apply to actions that occured at Abu-Graib and elsewhere) with copping a feel off some unsuspecting female while inebbriated. But the points the same. You can only reasonably hold a leader accountable for so much. I respect Bush (if this story is true) more for not yielding the enormous pressure to deliver someone's head on a platter to the press and critics of the Iraq action. I know some here would view his refusal to accept a Rumsfeld resignation as the peak of arrogance, and an inability to admit mistakes were made. I don't see it that way. I imagine Bush was as disgusted, pissed, and disappointed by the visual evidence of abuse as anyone. I know I was and am appalled by it. I don't think he would ever do anything to minimize that this is not indicative of our military or our values. But I believe in his heart, he felt Rumsfeld was a good man, an honest man, an honorable man, and not deserving of the blame inherent in that kind of resignation. Lots of folks dropped the ball at those prisons. And of course, Rumsfeld bears some responsiblity. But I'm also certain were we to go to war again, he's learned that kind of behavior cannot be tolerated and the ramifications it had upon public support of the war.

Fire him or accept his resignation, you've gained nothing, except a convenient scapegoat. Good for Bush for NOT accepting his resignation.

[SEF]

Originally posted by prophet

to bad kerry won't Appauligize for the things he said about nam and its veterens

:doh:

Your head hurts, huh?

[stevenaa]

I agree with Tarhog. Bush showed great leadership in not accepting the resignation. Rumsfield wasn't to blame. Bush decided to fade the heat, and rightfully so IMO>

[Thiebear]

Rummy is my favorite of the admin... then Condi.

The Prez should have accepted it though after the 2nd request.. Now your just teasing the man...

[Henry]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I know some here would view his refusal to accept a Rumsfeld resignation as the peak of arrogance, and an inability to admit mistakes were made. I don't see it that way.

Well, that's the way I saw it. And frankly, it cost Bush my vote. I agree that it's not always easy or convenient to hold someone you respect accountable for mistakes, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Tarhog

If Rumsfeld did offer up his resignation, I seriously doubt he did it as an acknowledgement of his own personal failure. He probably did it because he knew the enormous political liability that 'scandal' was becoming, and was willing to 'take one for the team'. The only ones 'responsible' for the supposed 'torture' that occured were the armed forces personnel that participated in it, and the officers and staff NCO's who either tolerated it, or were so hands-off they weren't aware it was going on.

During my time in the service, I came to be all too familiar with what the military calls the 'zero defects' mentality. Zero defects essentially means that no mistake is tolerated. Maximum punishment occurs for any infraction, and its not just the individual who committed the infraction. Its driven by all the wrong forces - political correctness, ambition (you don't get promoted if you make a mistake, and if those under your command make a mistake, they must be appropriately 'purged'). I'll give you an example. During my service time, the 'Tailhook' scandal broke. There were a bunch of drunken aviators at a conference who acted out, mistreated some women, etc....bad stuff of course. But it resulted in every single service member in every branch of the military receiving 'sensitivity training', including every all-male combat arms unit in the Marine Corps. It was insane.

I'm not equating torture (or whatever descriptor you feel appropriate to apply to actions that occured at Abu-Graib and elsewhere) with copping a feel off some unsuspecting female while inebbriated. But the points the same. You can only reasonably hold a leader accountable for so much. I respect Bush (if this story is true) more for not yielding the enormous pressure to deliver someone's head on a platter to the press and critics of the Iraq action. I know some here would view his refusal to accept a Rumsfeld resignation as the peak of arrogance, and an inability to admit mistakes were made. I don't see it that way. I imagine Bush was as disgusted, pissed, and disappointed by the visual evidence of abuse as anyone. I know I was and am appalled by it. I don't think he would ever do anything to minimize that this is not indicative of our military or our values. But I believe in his heart, he felt Rumsfeld was a good man, an honest man, an honorable man, and not deserving of the blame inherent in that kind of resignation. Lots of folks dropped the ball at those prisons. And of course, Rumsfeld bears some responsiblity. But I'm also certain were we to go to war again, he's learned that kind of behavior cannot be tolerated and the ramifications it had upon public support of the war.

Fire him or accept his resignation, you've gained nothing, except a convenient scapegoat. Good for Bush for NOT accepting his resignation.

Tarhog,

You and I look at this situation on different ends of the spectrum and I understand that.

Do you see the otherside as well? That NOT accepting Rummy's resignation shows a LACK of accountability?

[Tarhog]

I can respect that its a valid position....SO much depends on the facts of the situation and the personal conversations that occured.

I'd point out that NONE of Rumsfeld's opponents here would've ever guessed he was selfless enough to offer up his own head on a platter. You know why? Because we make snap judgements as distant observers that are rarely based on an accurate view of a situation (I include myself in that 'we'). In other words, many of you were blatantly and obviously wrong about that small aspect of his character.

It means any one of us could be wrong regarding what was in Bush's head and heart in this decision.

I may be giving Bush too much credit. Its equally possible many give him way too little.

Personally, I'll take loyalty, devotion, and commitment over expediency any day of the week. The 'right thing to do' is hardly ever simple.

[stevenaa]

"Do you see the otherside as well? That NOT accepting Rummy's resignation shows a LACK of accountability?"

I suppose that depends on the particulars that we really aren't privy too. Do you fire the CEO of a Fortune 500 company because a cash register clerk sexually harrased a co-worker?

Only if the CEO was aware of and failed to act on the incident.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that is the case. In fact, the matter was under investigation long before it became public. The only argument I hear is he should resign or be fired because he's ultimately the man in charge. That argument doesn't hold water in any other industry, why should it apply her?

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I can respect that its a valid position....SO much depends on the facts of the situation and the personal conversations that occured.

I'd point out that NONE of Rumsfeld's opponents here would've ever guessed he was selfless enough to offer up his own head on a platter. You know why? Because we make snap judgements as distant observers that are rarely based on an accurate view of a situation (I include myself in that 'we'). In other words, many of you were blatantly and obviously wrong about that small aspect of his character.

It means any one of us could be wrong regarding what was in Bush's head and heart in this decision.

I may be giving Bush too much credit. Its equally possible many give him way too little.

Personally, I'll take loyalty, devotion, and commitment over expediency any day of the week. The 'right thing to do' is hardly ever simple.

I'll be the first to admit I'd never expected he'd offer up his own head for the good of the team. I will also admit I have no idea what goes on in Bush's head. I can only judge on his actions. . . and they leave very little to be desired from my book.

I also completely agree that the right thing to do is never easy. Our finishing point may be different, but our methodology of getting from point A to B is similar. . . With that being said, I think almost ALWAYS, the best solution is in the middle. It's why I have such a hard time with Bush, his ideology and his black and white world.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by stevenaa

"Do you see the otherside as well? That NOT accepting Rummy's resignation shows a LACK of accountability?"

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that is the case. In fact, the matter was under investigation long before it became public. The only argument I hear is he should resign or be fired because he's ultimately the man in charge. That argument doesn't hold water in any other industry, why should it apply her?

Do you fire the CEO of a Fortune 500 company because a cash register clerk sexually harrased a co-worker?

Only if the CEO was aware of and failed to act on the incident.

I know where you are coming from, but I think the analogy you used doesn't fit. The premise is that it was set up from the top. They didn't necessarily say to torture the people, but the situation was put in place to where it was allowed.

As for firing the person. . . if you were CEO at a Fortune 500 company where a woman was sexually harrassed. . . and it was because you mandated a dress code of thongs and bras only, then you could be fired. Just having someone sexually harassed in your company doesn't give the justification.

Do you see the point?

[Tarhog]

I DO understand both sides of the argument. Here's the thing I respectfully differ with you on Henry - you're arguing that supporting Rumsfeld and refusing to back down was the 'easy choice' but that firing him or allowing him to resign was the difficult one? I don't buy that. Bush took heat for this stand...public, sustained heat. It would've been the easiest thing in the world to make someone the scapegoat, particularly when a high profile firebrand like Rumsfeld walks in and volunteers for the job. It might even have put the issue to rest.

It may not have been the 'right' decision - thats a much harder determination to make - but it was a courageous decision.

I AM torn on this particular topic, primarily because, while I don't feel it rose to the level of 'torture' the BS abuse some of these prisoners were put through to amuse some misguided, undisciplined idiots really bothers me. My position isn't about defending their actions in any way. I'd throw every one of them out of the military. I just don't like knee-jerk, cover your @ss, political manuevering. And I'd have seen any high-level firings, resignations as just that...done for the benefit of the press and to influence the latest poll numbers.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I DO understand both sides of the argument. Here's the thing I respectfully differ with you on Henry - you're arguing that supporting Rumsfeld and refusing to back down was the 'easy choice' but that firing him or allowing him to resign was the difficult one? I don't buy that. Bush took heat for this stand...public, sustained heat. It would've been the easiest thing in the world to make someone the scapegoat, particularly when a high profile firebrand like Rumsfeld walks in and volunteers for the job. It might even have put the issue to rest.

It may not have been the 'right' decision - thats a much harder determination to make - but it was a courageous decision.

I AM torn on this particular topic, primarily because, while I don't feel it rose to the level of 'torture' the BS abuse some of these prisoners were put through to amuse some misguided, undisciplined idiots really bothers me. My position isn't about defending their actions in any way. I'd throw every one of them out of the military. I just don't like knee-jerk, cover your @ss, political manuevering. And I'd have seen any high-level firings, resignations as just that...done for the benefit of the press and to influence the latest poll numbers.

I agree, it was a courageous decision, if it did happen, but I just think the right decision was to get rid of him. It's the way society works, the way people expect industry to be run and the way I want my country run. If you make a dreadful mistake, you get fired. It's the way any rational CEO would run a company.

[Stu]

Tarhog, spot on.

On the edit: Secretary Rumsfeld in my opinion has been great for the DOD. While not perfect (nobody is), he has focused the military establishment on fighting the "next" war vice the "last" one.

[Tarhog]

I despise the mentality in the civilian world as well. If there was one iota of belief in my mind that Rumsfeld approved of, encouraged, or gave a wink and a nod in support of the abuse of some of the prisoners, I'd agree with you. I don't believe thats the case. I believe he, above all others, found it despicable.

I'm not a big believer in the 'blame game' unless I can look at someone, and honestly feel they did wrong in their heart. Blame is a waste of time. Rumsfeld is accountable - and he took all kinds of heat for the incidents. I just don't see what parading around with his head on a stick would've accomplished.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I despise the mentality in the civilian world as well. If there was one iota of belief in my mind that Rumsfeld approved of, encouraged, or gave a wink and a nod in support of the abuse of some of the prisoners, I'd agree with you. I don't believe thats the case. I believe he, above all others, found it despicable.

This is where our difference is Tarhog, I don't have the same confidence in Rummy you do. I see the other side, but I will also admit, as I did previously, that I was taken back by his offering.

I'm not a big believer in the 'blame game' unless I can look at someone, and honestly feel they did wrong in their heart. Blame is a waste of time. Rumsfeld is accountable - and he took all kinds of heat for the incidents. I just don't see what parading around with his head on a stick would've accomplished.

Personally, I think it would have shown that we were accountable for our actions. Instead it has the appearance of doing nothing and ignoring the situation.

[Zuck]

Originally posted by KevinthePRF

Rumsfeld has been one of the more arrogant pieces in the Bush administration's aggressive foreign policy. And I'm very critical of him. Today on Larry King he stated that he attempted twice to turn in his resignation in wake of the Abu Ghraib mess.

If this indeed is the case, it eases slightly one of my biggest criticisms of this administration. And that being zero responsibility for our government's actions. Mostly in the prison case, which I didn't gripe too much about, and other issues all this administration and members of this board sink into is finger pointing and conspiracy theories(see: buried in Syria).

But Rumsfeld was willing to stand up and take responsibility in this case, at least until Bush said not to take responsibility, we can cast blame solely on ground zero. Hopefully more will take on Rumsfeld's example at a government level.

It's good that he offered his resignation. Bush should have accepted it.