McCain on Rumsfeld: "No Confidence"

[Mavdog]

Seems McCain expresses what many of us have thought about Rumsfeld's performance. Well said Senator McCain!
------------------------------------------------------------
McCain Has 'No Confidence' in Rumsfeld

By BETH DeFALCO, Associated Press Writer

PHOENIX - U.S. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) said Monday that he has "no confidence" in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, citing Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the failure to send more troops.

McCain, speaking to The Associated Press in an hourlong interview, said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation, explaining that President Bush (news - web sites) "can have the team that he wants around him."

Asked about his confidence in the secretary's leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago.

"I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence," McCain said.

He estimated an additional 80,000 Army personnel and 20,000 to 30,000 more Marines would be needed to secure Iraq.

"I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops — linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.," said McCain, R-Ariz. "There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue."

When asked if Rumsfeld was a liability to the Bush administration, McCain responded: "The president can decide that, not me."

McCain, a decorated Navy veteran and former Vietnam prisoner of war, is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), which has oversight of military operations and considerable influence over the Pentagon (news - web sites) budget.

If Senate Republicans maintain their majority two years from now, McCain would be in line to become the committee's chairman, something he said he'd weigh when considering whether to run for president again.

"In a couple of years I might give it some consideration, but not right now," he said of a 2008 presidential bid.

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said McCain "has frequently expressed his views regarding troop levels in Iraq, and he is an important member" of the committee.

Rumsfeld has "relied upon the judgment of the military commanders to determine what force levels are appropriate for the situation at hand," Di Rita said.

Despite the troop levels, McCain believes military morale remains high, but he acknowledged that involuntary extensions of tours of duty were frustrating to soldiers.

He said Iraq must have a functioning independent government before U.S. troops leave.

"I believe we'll be in Iraq militarily for many years, which would not be a problem to the American people," he said. "I think what is not acceptable to the American people is an increasing flow of dead and wounded."

[FishForLunch]

McPain is just a senator and not the President, I guess he has to wait till 2008 to become the President.

[dude1394]

McCain will have to wait a lot longer than that.

[Mavdog]

Thankfully we have people like McCain who understand they benefit our country by being statesmen. If we relied only upon the current occupants of the White House for leadership and honesty, judged by their track record, the American public would be fed nothing but BS.

[kg_veteran]

McCain's entitled to his opinion, and he may be right in this case. But let's not act as if he doesn't have political motivations for his comments.

[Mavdog]

Correct, for the 2008 race is on. The early tally has McCain gaining, Guiliani losing ground, and a wide open field on the Democrat's side.

[FishForLunch]

So MUCH for McPains concern for the troops. So why is the media not concerned about this hipocrite.

--------------------------------------------------------

Iraq Vet: McCain Snubbed the Troops

An Iraq war veteran who was part of the original invasion force went public yesterday with allegations that Sen. John McCain snubbed the troops when he visited the front lines during the early days of the occupation - while noting that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld routinely met with GIs during repeated visits to the war zone.

Identified only by his first name, Iraq GI Dan described the McCain visit during an unsolicited call to Sean Hannity's ABC Radio Network broadcast - saying he was upset that the Arizona Republican was accusing Rumsfeld of being oblivious to the concerns of troops on the ground.

"I had to let you know about this because I really don't think too many people know," the GI caller told Hannity. "McCain comes over and we do this whole big reception thing. It's 140-something degrees out. Soldiers are standing at attention outside, waiting for this guy to come."
The Iraq vet said that when McCain finally arrived, he "[didn't] say a single word to any of the soldiers."

Instead, said GI Dan, McCain spent "about five minutes at our safehouse there. And then he leaves - he didn't talk to a single soldier that was actually there . . . He didn't ask a single one of us anything."

The Iraq GI said it's much different when Rumsfeld visits Iraq.

"Every time [he] has gone over there - whether it's Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever - he's always made a point of talking to as many soldiers as he can; from a private, a low-ranking soldier, all the way up [the chain of command]."

Here's a full transcript of GI Dan's eye-opening comments to Sean Hannity:

I had to let you know about this because I really don't think too many people know about this.

I just got out of the army a little while ago. I was in Northern Iraq when we first jumped in, in March of 2003. Northern Iraq is probably a third of Iraq's oil.

John McCain comes over - and this is the thing that's killing me with him right now - McCain comes over and we do this whole big reception thing. It's 140-something degrees out. Soldiers are standing at attention outside, waiting for this guy to come.

He comes in - doesn't say a single word to any of the soldiers. He spends about five minutes at our safehouse there. And then he leaves - he didn't talk to a single soldier that was actually there.

All he wanted to see were the reports from the Northern Oil company there and how the company was going to deal with terrorist attacks on the pipeline leaving there . . .

Every time Rumsfeld has gone over there - whether it's Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever - he's always made a point of talking to as many soldiers as he can; from a private, a low-ranking soldier all the way up. McCain goes over there and he didn't find out anything from my soldiers, which were in a completely unique position.

We held the area that the Northern Oil Company was located in. We dealt with all the problems with terrorist attacks there. And he didn't ask a single one of us anything.

[dude1394]

McCain can whine all he wants. That's what he's good at, getting on a tv screen. Don Rumsfeld has done 10 times the service for his country than McCain.

[Mavdog]

Rumsfeld has done 10 times the disservice to our country, that's for sure.

Let's see, McCain fought as a soldier. Rumsfeld?

McCain was a prisioner of war, captured in battle. Rumsfeld?

McCain was elected by the citizens to serve them. Rumsfeld?

McCain has spoken honestly and factualy about our country and its leadership. Rumsfeld?

McCain has consistently stood up for the soldier's welfare and best interests. Rumsfeld?

Pretty slamdunk case for McCain.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Rumsfeld has done 10 times the disservice to our country, that's for sure.

Let's see, McCain fought as a soldier. Rumsfeld? : Yes Donald Rumsfeld.. Naval Aviator 1954-1957

McCain was a prisioner of war, captured in battle. Rumsfeld? : No

McCain was elected by the citizens to serve them. Rumsfeld? : Yes Member of congress for about 3 terms

McCain has spoken honestly and factualy about our country and its leadership. Rumsfeld? : Constantly

McCain has consistently stood up for the soldier's welfare and best interests. Rumsfeld? : Constantly, and their respect for him also proves it.

Pretty slamdunk case for McCain.

Oh....I was going to tit-for-tat but Rumsfelds stellar career is too large for that.

Born in Chicago, Illinois, of German descent (his grandfather was originally from Bremen in Northern Germany), Donald Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the United States Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator. He went to Washington, DC, in 1957, during the Eisenhower Administration, to serve as Administrative Assistant to a Congressman from Ohio. After a stint with an investment banking firm, he was elected to the United States House of Representatives from Illinois in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.

Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 during his fourth term to serve in the Nixon Administration as Director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity, Assistant to the President, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1969-1970); Counselor to the President, Director of the Economic Stabilization Program; and member of the President's Cabinet (1971-1972).

In 1973, he left Washington, DC, to serve as U.S. ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium (1973-1974).

In August 1974, he was called back to Washington, DC, to serve in the Ford Administration successively as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford (1974); White House Chief of Staff member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975); and the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense (1975-1977). During this period he was instrumental in increasing the power of the military within the administration and at the expense of the CIA and Henry Kissinger. This was accomplished by promulgating the view that the Soviet Union was increasing defense spending and pursuing secret weapons programs, and that the proper response was a re-escalation of the arms race. This view was in direct contrast to CIA and generally accepted reports on the declining state of the Soviet economy, and the earlier success of Richard Nixon in establishing Detente (referring to a thawing of the Cold War) with the Soviet Union. However, Rumsfeld was able to pave the way for the increase in acceptance of the views of Leo Strauss, which served as part of the foundation for the military build-up of the Reagan administrations (which claimed credit for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union).

In 1976, Rumsfeld was responsible for transferring George H.W. Bush from envoy to China into the position of Director of the CIA. This was reportedly an attempt to scuttle Bush's presidential ambitions, and led to a certain animosity between the two.
Secretary Rumsfeld laughing at the Cabinet table with President Gerald Ford in 1975
Enlarge
Secretary Rumsfeld laughing at the Cabinet table with President Gerald Ford in 1975

In 1977, Rumsfeld was awarded the nation's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

From 1977 to 1985 Rumsfeld served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company. It was under Rumsfeld that Searle got FDA approval for the controversial artificial sweetener, aspartame. During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld reduced the number of employees in the company by around 60%. The financial turnaround of the company earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). Rumsfeld is believed to have earned around US$12 million from the sale of Searle to Monsanto.

From 1985 to 1990 he was in private business. During his business career, Rumsfeld continued public service in a variety of posts, including:

* Member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control - Reagan Administration (1982 - 1986);
* President Reagan's Special Envoy on the Law of the Sea Treaty (1982 - 1983);
* Senior Advisor to President Reagan's Panel on Strategic Systems (1983 - 1984);
* Member of the U.S. Joint Advisory Commission on U.S./Japan Relations - Reagan Administration (1983 - 1984);
* President Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East (1983 - 1984);
* Member of the National Commission on the Public Service (1987 - 1990);
* Member of the National Economic Commission (1988 - 1989);
* Member of the Board of Visitors of the National Defense University (1988 - 1992);
* Member of the Commission on U.S./Japan Relations (1989 - 1991);
* Member of the Board of Directors for ABB Ltd (1990 - 2001);
* FCC's High Definition Television Advisory Committee (1992 - 1993);
* Chairman, Commission on the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (1998 - 1999);
* Member of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission (1999 - 2000); and
* Chairman of the U.S. Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization (2000).


I stand by the statement.

[Mavdog]

Interesting. all that time spent in appointed positions yet so little accomplishments realized from it.

I stand by my statement.

[dude1394]

up armor

My long-term readers may recall that I am no member of the Donald Rumsfeld fan club myself, but the calls for his head from US Senators over the phony armor shortage is absurd - especially from Republican Sen. John McCain; I increasingly wonder whether he knows he often seems to disconnect brain from tongue when making the talk shows. McCain's Senate duties have included direct oversight of DOD expenditures since the years of the Clinton administration.

Yet the Tennessean reported,

The Pentagon is spending $4.1 billion over the next year to add armor to vehicles in Iraq. [Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey] Sorenson said 35,000 of them need armored protection, of which 29,000 have been funded by Congress.

Got that? The Army's funding for armor is 6,000 vehicles short because John McCain won't choke up the money.

All of which is to say that it's business as usual on Capitol Hill: to seem rather than to be.

[FishForLunch]

But but McPain is a media darling he can do no wrong.

[dude1394]

This is too good to not post the whole thing.

townhall.com
Rumsfeld's logic
Tony Blankley (back to web version) | email to a friend Send

December 22, 2004

It is often observed that certain brilliant people "don't suffer fools gladly." But the more common experience of mankind is that fools don't suffer brilliant people gladly.

An excellent example of this phenomenon is the current attack on Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld by a legion of Washington little people: a pack of has beens, never weres and wannabees. In other words, sitting senators, retired generals and journalists who, whether sitting or standing are, regrettably, never retiring.

What they all have in common is a consuming hatred of logic (of course one often hates that with which one has no familiarity). And, what Donald Rumsfeld has in vast supply is logic: cold, undeniable, cruel, inexorable. Logic is that way. And people who express it may seem that way to the illogical.

We all hate logic. I hate the logic that dictates that if I ingest more calories than I expend, the result is adipose tissue distributed at all the wrong parts of my body. I prefer the illogic that if I eat enough steak, bacon, fried eggs and martinis on an Atkins diet -- calories won't count.

Several senators and congressmen who have been in town for decades hate Mr. Rumsfeld's logic that you fight a war with the army you've got. They prefer the illogic that cutting the size of our army in half between 1990-2000 should have no bearing on the size of the army you have in 2001. How dare Rumsfeld point out the consequences of their defense budget cuts.

That was then. They had good reasons to cut the number of Army divisions from 18 to 10, to eliminate legions of armored vehicles, to let the military industrial base shrink to the point where we can barely manufacture 500 armored Humvees (read: jeeps) a month (in World War II, we could produce almost 10,000 combat airplanes a month).

Their good, if illogical, reason for gutting our army was to trade a "peace dividend" for votes in the 1990s on the hope that we wouldn't have any new enemies in the 2000s. But the logic of their action was that in our current war, the Army is too small. And, the cost of re-building the Army back to 15-20 divisions would double or triple today's much-complained-of deficit of about a half a trillion dollars per annum. No wonder Rumsfeld isn't calling for massive Army expansion in today's political climate. But the logic of his decisions outrages the Beltway sages.

Many of these outraged Rumsfeld critics also bitterly complained of his decision a few years ago to cancel production and deployment of the Crusader artillery piece -- a magnificent 60-ton, fully-automated ammunition handling and firing 155-mm self-propelled howitzer capable of firing one round 40 km every six seconds. It would have been just perfect for blowing up Soviet tanks as they dashed through the Fulda Gap into West Germany, or raining death on a seiged Soviet camp. They would also have been just perfect for satisfying special interests back home and keeping artillery generals happy.

Unfortunately, with the Soviet threat having evaporated, logic suggested to Don Rumsfeld that an insufficiently mobil and imprecise 60-ton cannon would probably not be terribly useful in the asymmetrical warfare we were likely to face. So he just cancelled it, which, of course, didn't stop elements in the Pentagon from continuing to lobby their friendly senators to overrule Rumsfeld. Happily, they lost.

Transforming our military into a logical structure that can defeat the enemies we will actually face in the 21st century has infuriated the legions of politicians, generals, defense contractors, lobbyists and journalists who have encrusted themselves around the magnificent weapons and methods of bygone days.

Rumsfeld didn't even schmooze the senators. He let his logic do the talking. After many similar incidents, he is now accused of having bad relations and few friends on Capitol Hill. If the Pentagon had any more friends there, our fleets would still be powered by canvas and wind -- in deference to the illogic of special interests and old sentiments.

Mindlessly echoing Rumsfeld's Pentagon and Capitol Hill opponents are the empty suits and skirts (credit to Michael Savage for the phrase) who report the news. When two or three of these people have shared their illogic with each other, it constitutes a reportable condition called "a buzz" that Rumsfeld is in trouble for not doing his job properly.

He is, in fact, doing his job just fine. But we live in age of fraudulent sentiment and paralyzing political correctness. In such a time, Don Rumsfeld's greatest mistake is not sweetening his logic with sentimental treacle.

He could learn from Lewis Carroll's Walrus, who, before gobbling up the little oysters (which is the logical consequence of a Walrus meeting a plate of oysters), proclaimed: "'I weep for you,' the Walrus said. 'I deeply sympathize.' With sobs and tears he sorted out Those of the largest size, Holding his pocket-handkerchief Before his streaming eyes."

Perhaps Mr. Rumsfeld would have more friends in Washington if he had weeped before cancelling the Crusader cannon or explaining the realities of war. But without his cold logic, we would expose ourselves to the fate of the ever-sentimental little oysters.

[dude1394]

saunders

Bush would have to pick someone else -- preferably someone who would carry out Rumsfeld's plans to transform the U.S. military (and don't expect any of Rummy's many critics to take on that thankless job). I asked Sen. John McCain last week if he'd be interested in the job. He said he could do more for the military if he heads the Senate Armed Services Committee in two years.

Those that can do, those that can't become senators.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
saunders

Those that can do, those that can't become senators.

and those who won't become career bureaucrats such as "Rummy".

[dude1394]

One who's endorsement holds a lot more weight than McCain, Lott, Kristol or me.

powerline

A soldier endorses Rumsfeld

Reader Richard Mattson has alerted us to an astonishing eyewitness report by Captain Dan Mattson (his brother) deriving from Secretary Rumsfeld's in-theater visit. Today Secretary Rumsfeld visited a military hospital just two miles from the dining hall tent in Mosul where the huge explosion occurred as staff were sitting down for lunch Tuesday. Captain Mattson reports from the hospital:

It's Christmas Eve, though it didn't feel like it. There are some good decorations in the hospital, but we had no Christmas music in the OR today, and no snow on the ground. No nativity scenes or festive cheer in this part of the world. Then, after a routine for here but hardly routine day in the OR, my day was made. I'm referring to the interaction I witnessed and helped facilitate between a young injured soldier and a high ranking official. Here is how it happened:

I was reading foxnews.com at around noon when I told the anesthesiologist that "the Donald" was in town on a surprise visit. No, not Donald Trump, but Donald Rumsfeld. He laughed cynically and said no way would he come here. Well, at around 1600 I was in the OR and I was told that Rumsfeld was downstairs, and we could go down there if we wanted to. I was not in a position to leave, obviously.

Well, the timing worked out well, because I was taking my patient to the recovery room when we wheeled the stretcher through a mob of dignitaries, to include 3 and 4 star generals. I knew the Secretary was nearby, and it turns out he was in the ICU. The patient drew enough attention because of his bruised, banged up face that the 4 star came over to get his story from the surgeon. I was doing some charting by the bedside when Mr. Rumsfeld came over and heard the kid's story from the 4-star. Rumsfeld looked concerned and kind of kept his distance from the gruesome site. He said something like "bless his heart", as if talking around him.

That is when I, without any thought, piped in with "Sir, you can talk to him, he's awake." He told the soldier, named Rob, how proud he was of his service. The soldier was in a bit of disbelief, because he couldn't see with one eye patched and the other swollen shut. He said he wanted to talk to Rumsfeld. That's when I said "He's standing right to your left, Rob, that's his voice you hear. You can talk to him." The kid was nervous at that point, but sputtered out how honored he was to talk to him. Mr. Rumsfeld replied, "No, it's an honor for me to talk to you."

Then remarkably, the young soldier, who had just lost his left hand and right eye from an explosion, came to the defense of the Secretary of Defense, stating "Mr. Rumsfeld, I want you to know, that you are doing a fantastic job. I know that you are taking a lot of heat for the problems with getting armor for vehicles. I want you to know that things are vastly improved. Our vehicles are great, and I have never searched through junk piles for scrap metal."

At this point, Rumsfeld looked choked up, and I had a lump in my throat and and watery eyes. It was moving. What makes a man who has been so close to death, and maimed for life, come to the defense of the Army's highest ranking official? Loyalty, I dare say. Did Rob think Mr. Rumsfeld was having a self-esteem problem? In his greatest hour of need, his thoughts went to the emotional needs of another. I found it quite amazing, and moving. The Secretary took out a coin and gave it to a bystander for him, as if he didn't know he could touch him. Finally, the soldier said, "Man, Donald Rumsfeld, I wish I could shake his hand."

Even at that, I felt Mr. Rumsfeld needed some prompting, so I picked up the kid's arm and looked at the Secretary, and he reached out and took the kid's hand. After the entourage left, I took the coin and placed it in the soldiers hand, for him to feel and hold. I said, "that's not one you'll get every day." He was happy. I told the person caring for him to make certain that coin went with him to his room. I was assured that he would. I told Rob it was an honor to care for him, and then went on to do my next case. I'd like to see him tomorrow, but I heard he is flying out tonight.

[dude1394]

And a hostle message board I might add. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

secular

-------------
The internet as a counterbalance to al-Jazeera

Donald Rumsfeld may be an insensitive bastard, which probably explains why he's not security of fluffy animals or whatever it's called, but he understands the challenges posed by a hostile media, and so does the soldiers in Iraq:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, how do we win the war in the media? It seems like that is the place where we're getting beat up more than anybody else. I've been here -- this is my third tour over here, and we have done some amazing things. And it seems like the enemy's Web sites and everything else are all over the media, and they love it. But the thing is, is everything we do good, no matter if it's helping a little kid or building a new school, the public affairs sends out the message, but the media doesn't pick up on it. How do we win the propaganda war?

RUMSFELD: That does not sound like a question that was planted by the press.

(LAUGHTER)

RUMSFELD: That happens sometimes. It's one of the hardest things we do in our country. We have freedom of the press. We believe in that. We believe that democracy can take that massive misinformation and differing of views, and that free people can synthesize all of that and find their way to right decisions.

Out here, it's particularly tough. Everything we do here is harder, because of television stations like Al Jazeera and al-Arabiya and the constant negative approach. You don't hear about the schools are open and the hospitals are open and the clinics are open, and the fact that the stock markets are open and the Iraqi currency is steady, and the fact that there have been something like 140,000 refugees coming from other countries back into this country. They're voting with their feet, because they believe this is a country of the future.

You don't read about that. You read about every single negative thing that anyone can find to report.

I was talking to a group of congressmen and senators the other day, and there were a couple of them who had negative things to say, and they were in the press in five minutes. There were 15 or 20 that had positive things to say about what's going on in Iraq, and they couldn't get on television. Television just said we're not interested. That's just sorry. So, it is, I guess, what's news has to be bad news to get on the press.

And the truth is, however, it gets through eventually. There are people in the United States who understand what's really going on over here. They do understand that thousands of acts of kindness and compassion and support that are taking place all across this country. They do understand that large portions of this country are relatively peaceful. And something like 14 out of 18 of the problems it's had, incidents of down around five a day as opposed to the ones in certain places like Baghdad that are considerably higher.

And the Internet is helping. More and more people are seeing things that are taking the conventional wisdom and critiquing it and arguing it and debating it. And that's a good thing.

So, we are a great country. And we can benefit from having a free press. And from time to time people will be concerned about it. But in the last analysis, look at where we've come as a country, because we have had a free press.

And we've -- I mean, I've got a great deal of confidence in the center of gravity of the American people. What hurts most is in the region, where the neighboring countries whose help we need are constantly being barraged with truly vicious inaccuracies about what's taking place in this country. And it's conscious. It's consistent. It's persistent. And it makes everything we try to do in neighboring countries, where we're looking for support, vastly more difficult.

And we, as a country, don't do that. We don't go out and hire journalists and propagandize and lie and put people on payroll so that they'll say what you want. We just don't do that. And they do. And that's happening. And Al Jazeera is right there at the top.

These wise words are unlikely to be as widely distributed by the MSM as the "army you have" statement. Wonder why

[dude1394]

Huh... who woulda' though it?

powerline

Check out this Military Times poll:

Among active duty military, 63% approve of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. Two-thirds of combat vets think the war is worth fighting. A whopping 87% are satisfied with their jobs. And one of my favorites: "60% blame Congress for the shortage of body armor in the combat zone."

None of this is a surprise to those who have been paying attention. But if all you read is the mainstream media, wouldn't you be puzzled as to how all of these military personnel could be enthusiastic about a war in which nothing good ever happens?