Donald Rumsfeld Speaks on

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Donald Rumsfeld Speaks on

Originally posted by Pax
Iran, democracy, and etc...
Why? He is the SecDef. Why is he in the news criticizing elections in Iran. I think the SecDef should be concerned with issues such as Veteran's retirement, making sure the wars we are fighting are properly funded and military well trained. By defintion of title, Iran should only come as related to ACTUAL security concerns. If they are planning a war or if we are planning a war.

Maybe because Iran is an actual security concern?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Re: Donald Rumsfeld Speaks on

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Maybe because Iran is an actual security concern?

Countries that are "security concerns" have never, in the past, been addressed by the SecDef. The SecDef gets involved when the matter becomes military; before that, it's a matter for either the SecState or the NSA.

Think Cold War. Who handled the Soviets? Acheson, Dulles, Kissinger, Schultz, etc. All SecStates (Kissinger was also NSA). Who dealt with "security concerns" under Clinton? Christopher, Albright, Tony Lake. Aside from McNamara -- and he was directing a war -- I can't remember any SecDef with this public a presence, and none with this wide-ranging a portfolio.

[Kuciwalker]

Countries that are "security concerns" have never, in the past, been addressed by the SecDef.

Read his post.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Countries that are "security concerns" have never, in the past, been addressed by the SecDef.

Read his post.

I did read his post. I'm parsing the distinction you're making, and suggesting that you're both wrong. His definition of "security concern" is wrong (under that definition, the Soviets were not a security concern fro most of the Cold War) and your suggestion that Iran, because it is a security concern, falls within the purview of the SecDef is also wrong.

Where Pax is right is in suggesting that, unless we are planning a war with Iran or vice versa, Rumsfeld is not teh person who should be speaking for teh administration on Iran. He certainly has no business addressing their election process.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There's a great Cheney story from his first days as SecDef under George I. Larry Welch was the Chief of Staff of the USAF back then, and Welch had gone to Capitol Hill to visit a personal friend from their early air force days who was now a Congressman. Cheney assumed (based on no information) that Welch was up there lobbying, so when he saw Welch at lunch, Cheney called Welch out publicly in the outdoor dining area inside the E-ring about "freelancing" and going up to the Hill without permission. When Welch explained who'd he'd gone to see and why, Cheney just turned away in a huff and muttered something to the effect of "well, don't do it again."

One of Welch's buddies made a remark about the exchange, and Welch replied that he'd "been shot at by professionals, so getting shot at by an amateur was no bid deal."

And Cheney hasn't learned a thing since then, almost 17 years ago.

And Cheney fired him a few days later. Welch was CofS for about 3 months.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


I did read his post. I'm parsing the distinction you're making, and suggesting that you're both wrong. His definition of "security concern" is wrong (under that definition, the Soviets were not a security concern fro most of the Cold War) and your suggestion that Iran, because it is a security concern, falls within the purview of the SecDef is also wrong.

Where Pax is right is in suggesting that, unless we are planning a war with Iran or vice versa, Rumsfeld is not teh person who should be speaking for teh administration on Iran. He certainly has no business addressing their election process.

I stand CORRECTED AGAIN! My point is as Firefly stated. Thanks FLYGUY!

[Alexander's Horse]

I'd like to see Rumsfeld kind of meltdown in public, which is likely once he realises noone is listening anymore. That would be very cool.

My bet is if Bush has an ounce of sense Rumsfeld will fall on his sword eventually.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Which always begs the question of who's actually in charge?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'd like to see Rumsfeld kind of meltdown in public, which is likely once he realises noone is listening anymore. That would be very cool.

My bet is if Bush has an ounce of sense Rumsfeld will fall on his sword eventually.

Something is going to happen.


I've mentioned it a few times, but the "I tried to resign twice but the President wouldn't accept it" line is very peculiar...

[Alexander's Horse]

DanS should be here defending his boy.

[Ted Striker]

I think poor Dan has become the Lone Ranger.

I have heard people I would have never expected latley talking about how they are tired of Iraq. These are even the "kill 'em all and let god sort it out," types.

Unbelievable.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
DanS should be here defending his boy.

I have nothing invested in what happens to Rumsfeld. I expect him to resign in a year or two anyway. That job always accumulates a lot of spears in the stomach. It's also the biggest portfolio.

[Alexander's Horse]

tee hee - just wanted to make sure you were keeping up with your reading

[Ted Striker]

3 1/2 years is too long to wait.

*sigh*

[Ted Striker]

On another note, Bush addressed the nation tonight, on television, about Iraq, in which he made way too many references about 9/11. It's freaking annoying and insulting that he continues to spew that crap.

The 9/11 Card has become a joke, and it looks desparate.

It used to be the Trump card, when you threw it down, it was game over. It was like insulting someone's Mom. Everybody knew there was no comeback from it. But now it's been bastardized to the point that it's a parody. But hey, half our people still think Saddam did 9/11, so it works.

But the rest of us know he's full of it. And of course we got to hear about "freedom."

Even CNN is running more time to the negative responses.

Senator Kerry has been going on the offensive latley. Maybe that's his new role, attack dog. Good on him.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/28/bush.speech/index.html