Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Should Rummy step down?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: barry2952

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former top officials in two presidential administrations -- one Democratic, one Republican -- disagreed Sunday with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's characterization of what would happen if the United States were to pull out of the war in Iraq.

"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," Rumsfeld wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday -- the third anniversary of the beginning of the U.S.-led war in Iraq -- in the Washington Post.

The anniversary came as officials from Iraq and the United States differed on whether there is all-out civil war there. (Full story)

Henry Kissinger, who served with U.S. forces in Germany at the end of World War II and who served as secretary of state under Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford, said the situations are not analogous.

"In Germany, the opposition was completely crushed; there was no significant resistance movement," the German-born diplomat told CNN's "Late Edition."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser under President Carter, a Democrat, was less charitable.

"That is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history," he said. "There was no alternative to our presence. The Germans were totally crushed. For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."

Rumsfeld has been a lightning rod for complaints against the wars on terrorism and Iraq since shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. (Watch the debate over Rumsfeld -- 2:38)

He told CNN in February 2005 that he had twice offered President Bush his resignation during the height of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, but the president refused to accept it. (Full story)

His record in Iraq came in for fresh criticism Sunday from a man who worked under him.

"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq," said Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.

"Mr. Rumsfeld must step down," he wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday in the New York Times.

"Secretary Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the president," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said in a written statement Sunday. "Retired Gen. Eaton is certainly entitled to his opinion."

Eaton's opinion was shared by Sen. Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the defense secretary.

"Imagine what would happen if it were announced tomorrow in the headlines of the papers of America and throughout the world that Rumsfeld was fired," the Delaware senator told CNN.

"It would energize, energize the rest of the world, to be willing to help us. It would energize American forces, it would energize the political environment. Yes, he should step down."

Asked his opinion, Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, chose neither to defend nor to criticize Rumsfeld.

"If President Bush ever wants to visit with me privately about my counsel on his Cabinet, I am sure he will ask me, but it appears to me it would not be helpful for me to make a comment," the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said.

U.S. officials have expressed hopes that the number of troops in Iraq could be reduced later this year depending on the country's progress with security and politics.

Bush delivered a speech last week at George Washington University where he said "as more capable Iraqi police and soldiers come on line, they will assume responsibility for more territory with the goal of having the Iraqis control more territory than the coalition, by the end of 2006."

Posted by: MonsterMark

No.

Posted by: Calabrio

Also answering the title of the thread, no.
And I have little regard for anything Brzezinski says.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Also answering the title of the thread, no.
And I have little regard for anything Brzezinski says.

And they trot out this guy too. Gee, wonder why he doesn't like Rumsfeld.

"Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004."

Could it be the previous job he had? Ya think?

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Why would Eaton's previous job, in of itself, have any affect on his opinion of his prior "boss"?? Either your boss is good, or bad. His previous job only adds credibility to his opinion of his prior boss.

I think both Rumsfeld and Cheney, both outspoken neocons, have been a ball-and-chain around the BuSh presidency. Had it not been for the dark alleys these two have lead GW down over the past few years, I firmly believe GW's approval ratings would be much higher.

But go ahead, leave these two bimbos in place and watch them drag the BuSh presidency, along w/ the GOP, down the drain. I'm getting some popcorn.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Gee, do you think one's opinion could be tainted by the way a particular job ends? If the guy was let go for whatever reason, you don't think it is possible that he would hold ill-will for his boss? This is the guy that supposedly failed to train the Iraqis properly and quickly enough. Now I don't know why he was let go but my suspicions lead me to believe he was either told to fall on the axe or his head was chopped off by it. Either way, that episode could leave someone to hold a grudge with his own axe to grind, could it not?

I am sure the media is swarming looking for ex-Bush employees and appointees. Those are the people the media intentionally seeks out to further their agenda.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Gee, do you think one's opinion could be tainted by the way a particular job ends? If the guy was let go for whatever reason, you don't think it is possible that he would hold ill-will for his boss? This is the guy that supposedly failed to train the Iraqis properly and quickly enough. Now I don't know why he was let go but my suspicions lead me to believe he was either told to fall on the axe or his head was chopped off by it. Either way, that episode could leave someone to hold a grudge with his own axe to grind, could it not?

I am sure the media is swarming looking for ex-Bush employees and appointees. Those are the people the media intentionally seeks out to further their agenda.

Do you know for a fact that he "was let go", and did not retire on his own accord? The article makes no implication that this guy was fired for any reason, only that his is currently retired.

Posted by: Kbob

"That is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history," he said. "There was no alternative to our presence. The Germans were totally crushed. For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."

That quote is from the article. It's refuting Rumsfeld's belief that abandoning Iraq would be the equivalent to handing Germany back over to the Nazi's immediately after WWII. They are right, it's not the same. If the US had abandoned Germany immediately after WWII, we didn't need to fear the Nazis. It was Communist Russia that was the threat. They would have gobbled West Germany up, and probably the rest of Europe. Now, does that make you feel better about abandoning Iraq? Me neither. Abandoning Iraq would be a colossal mistake.