Casualties of War (McCain & Rumsfeld)

[Khephra]

Casualties of War
The death toll among soldiers is mounting, even as political pressure builds and we head into a bitter election battle

By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
NEWSWEEK


Nov. 17 issue — Donald Rumsfeld’s favorite editorial cartoon used to be one that showed him driving a car, surrounded by a group of juvenile reporters shrieking, “Is it Vietnam yet?”

THAT WAS SIX MONTHS AGO, when the Defense secretary laughingly dismissed the idea that Iraq was, or could turn into, a quagmire. But as Rumsfeld sat down last Friday morning to face Sen. John McCain, who spent six years in a Vietnamese prison, no one was laughing. The same day, six more U.S. soldiers had died when their Black Hawk crashed under fire. It was the second chopper downed in a week, bringing the week’s U.S. dead to 32 (two more were killed the next day). It was the worst weekly toll since “major combat” ended in May. And in a speech two days earlier, McCain had blasted Rumsfeld for being “irresponsible” and defeatist by talking of handing things over hastily to ill-trained Iraqis. “Iraq is not Vietnam,” McCain said. But Vietnam holds “cautionary lessons.” “We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting, and because we limited the tools at our disposal.” Was the same thing happening in Iraq now?

The day after McCain’s speech, Rumsfeld asked him to breakfast, where the mood matched a suddenly chilly November. “I read your speech,” harrumphed Rumsfeld (that “must have been an enjoyable experience for him,” McCain joked later). Then Rummy patiently explained to his fellow Republican why he’d continue to do things mostly the same way. McCain, who says the military is badly undermanned in Iraq, insisted that “the facts on the ground did not coincide with a successful ongoing effort to bring democracy to Iraq.” The response of Rumsfeld and his top brass? They “believed there was no need for additional troops,” McCain later related. The real question now, the senator suggests, may be whether George W. Bush himself will insist on a change of plan. “I’d like to see the president fully engaged,” McCain told NEWSWEEK. Bush needs to be on top of “more details of what’s going on.”


more.................
http://www.msnbc.com/news/991206.asp

[LittleApple81]

1. The last paragraph is really ironic and really sad...

Ironically, a resurgent job market could hurt the president on Iraq by reducing the attractions of the military. “If the economy picks up, it could be disaster,” says a senior Army officer evaluating retention. And while Rumsfeld is routinely restaffing community draft boards, no one is seriously considering that idea—yet. But the Pentagon chief conceded that McCain was right to warn him against signaling U.S. retreat through “Iraqification.” The question now is whether Americans will signal retreat—at the recruiting offices and polls.

_____________

So, they want a hungry and hopeless crop of young people to be willing to go die for the BFEE?

[JohnyCanuck]

2. Give me a break, McCain

McCain later related. The real question now, the senator suggests, may be whether George W. Bush himself will insist on a change of plan. “I’d like to see the president fully engaged,” McCain told NEWSWEEK. Bush needs to be on top of “more details of what’s going on."


Fully engaged? What a joke. Like we are supposed to belief Dimwit in Chief (who can't even be bothered to read a newspaper) really has the intelectual wherewithall to tear himself away from the Presidential Game Boy to evaluate data and reports from a variety of sources, (apart from what he is continuously force fed by Rummy, Rove, Condiliar and Uncle Dick) and make his owns plans and chart independant courses of action. If McCain really believes that, I don't know who is the bigger fool, McCain or Dubya.

[joeybee12]

3. McCain missed one very important "cautionary lesson"

Like Vietnam, we should not be the f**k in Iraq in the first place!

[baby_bear]

4. On the other hand...

The fact that McCain is suggesting, to a mainstream media outlet, that W* is less than fully engaged, is pretty damn huge.

Never mind that we here have known that all along. There are plenty of people out there who don't realize or won't admit it. But a lot of those people might pay attention if it's McCain pointing out that the emperor is missing a few articles of clothing (not to mention brain cells).

s_m

[Desperadoe]

5. McCain is just like the rest of them

The whole bunch are on a mission to undo all of their perceived mistakes from the Vietnam era and the 70's. They are all still convinced that we lost Vietnam because of the libruls and the hippies. If only we had supported the war and been real patriots like Senator McCain and Dummy Rummy instead of burning the draft cards and demonstrating in the streets. They just cannot accept the fact that the all-powerful USA got their asses kicked by a bunch of midgets in pajamas.


This is why you are seeing all of the same old, same old. This is deja vu all over again. These old assholes are still fighting Vietnam, convinced that if America had just done things their way, we would have beat those commie slopeheads.

What a bunch of sad, old losers these guys are. McCain is the worst of the bunch because even among the informed members of DU, he still garners respect. He's a pig just like Bush and Ashcroft and Rummy and the rest of these criminals.

Ignore this craphead and drive all of them into the Old Republican Losers Home where they can sit around and recollect all of their imagined triumphs before they can attempt to revise history and turn this country into a banana republic like it was becoming in the 20's.

America needs it's own jihad and it needs to start damn soon. Freedom isn't free and it never was. The younger generation of Americans has to rise up and protect themselves from the demons that posess the present leadership. Otherwise, 10 years from now there will be bloodshed in our streets.

[pezcore64]

6. ....

McCain gets respect by some around here because he actually has the balls to stand up to his extremist controlled party. He definitely gets respect from me to a certain extent.

"America needs it's own jihad and it needs to start damn soon. Freedom isn't free and it never was. The younger generation of Americans has to rise up and protect themselves from the demons that posess the present leadership. Otherwise, 10 years from now there will be bloodshed in our streets."

While I may agree with that statement, I wouldnt go around making those statements. You might end up with homeland security at your door, lol! Besides, where I come from thats called a REVOLUTION, not jihad.

[Desperadoe]

7. You should be careful

about trying to put words in someone else's mouth.....especially around here.

I didn't say anything about a REVOLUTION, now did I?? Read the post where I suggested that .... "Otherwise, 10 years from now there will be bloodshed in our streets." A jihad is not necessarily a bloody revolution even if the folks at FR think it is.

"You might end up with homeland security at your door, lol".............Is that a threat???

[WilliamPitt]

11. Oh, please LET HOMELAND SECURITY COME TO MY FUCKING DOOR

I live in Cambridge. You can make the call yourself.

[shirlden]

8. Rummy wanted us out of Vietnam

I am just reading an article in the Nov. issue of The Atlantic Monthly, by James Mann, called Young Rumsfeld.
Nixon talked about "dumping" Rumsfeld because of his stance on the Vietnam War. He was a dove at this point in his life.

:kick:

[ameriphile]

9. Check out McCain's editorial in today's Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14254-2003Nov7.html


--snip--

Administration officials must be careful not to adjust our military posture in Iraq for political reasons. The only legitimate reason to adjust our posture is to improve our ability to accomplish our mission or respond to our successes in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq.

Prematurely placing the burden of security on Iraqis is not the answer. It is irresponsible to suggest that it is up to Iraqis to win this war. In doing so, we shirk the responsibility that we willingly incurred when we assumed the burden of liberating and transforming their country, for their sake and our own. If the U.S. military, the world's best fighting force, cannot defeat the Iraqi insurgents, how do we expect Iraqi militiamen with only weeks of training to do any better?

--snip--

[yellowcanine]

10. If McCain doesn't thing Bush is fully engaged....

Shouldn't he be getting off his duff and challenging Bush in the Republican primaries? Either that or throwing his support to any one of several Dem candidates who would be "fully engaged". Cripes, how pathetic is it that McCain thinks his party's leader isn't "on top of what's going on" and he is not willing to do anything about it? Are the Republicans willing to allow our military to get chewed up in Iraq just because they don't have the balls to challenge Bush?