Dollard And Rumsfeld
At a Claremont Institute event at which Rumsfeld was presented with the Winston Churchill Statesman Award, the great one and I had an opportunity to spend some time speaking about the Iraq war, and the path ahead in the entire GWOT. He has lost none of his unmatched intellectual prowess and rapier debate skills. This is one guy who can kick anyone’s ass in about any argument, and does so with a unique Truman-esque combination of highly evolved thought and very plain speaking. And yes, he can wield his words like a .50 cal mounted on a Humvee whenever appropriate. And trust me, this man’s global view is about as throughly comprehensive and incisive as one could hope for in any great American leader. He was very pleased to hear that someone in Hollywood actually had the audicity to make a pro-war series, and that Showtime had bought it no less. After we spoke, someone grabbed this snapshot, for which I am grateful. I have a hard time smiling for photos, so don’t read anything into that. Plus we’d just had a pretty heavy chat about the horrors in Ramadi.
Honestly, I’m not sure what was better. My time with Rummy and some other great movers and shakers, or when a bevy of hot college girls told my increasingly paunchy and pale middle-aged ass “it’s an honor to meet you”. Perks - every job needs them.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
That’s some mighty serious “elbow-rubbing” there, Pat!
What did Rummy have to say about recent progress and successes in Iraq since “the surge”?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:02 amYou have to be kidding about Rumsfled. He will go down as the worse failure in foreign policy and war management in modern history. It took a boot to his ass out the door for this war to get moving. Your support of that guy is disappointing.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:03 amI like Rummy, but have to admit that I think he botched the war.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:04 amI couldn’t disagree more. Rumsfeld had a hand delt him. He couldn’t choose what cards were in that hand, and I think he played the hand masterfully. More importantly he brought the United States Military and defense departments in into the 21st century. Much of what he accomplished you can’t easily quantify in terms of what it will mean to the military 5 10, and even 50 years from now. He took an archaic and bureucratic system, and did much to streamline it. People outside the 5 sided barn, who only rely on what is openly discussed by the press, may not fully appreciate how deep some of those changes were.
A SecDef not only has to play the hand he is delt, he has to sell it as the best possible hand we could have to our enemies, even when it’s not. If there’s something you need, and you can’t have it, you have to say you don’t need it publically, while internally finding a quick fix, and some way to get the job done without it.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:14 amI think Rumsfeld being called a great American leader is exactly right. look, we wasnt used to fighting the “unconventional” war and some mistakes were made. He was given the opportunity to plan an assymetrical war and was basically trial and error. After some time of adjusting and readjusting we finally got it right, I have trouble with faulting Rumsfeld for the way the war was up until the surge.
Great pic Pat. I would be proud to hang that one on my wall if i was you
November 29th, 2007 at 7:14 amI Cant speak for what he did internally at the DOD and wont argue that point, but he wanted to fight the war “on the cheap”. We were not prepared for the crumbling of the Iraqi govt and security apparatus and failed to prevent and recognize the insurgency. Why not? I have always been amazed how the supposedly “best and brightest” didnt forsee and prepare for what happened post-invasion. I sure thought what happened could of happened and I’m no geopolitical-military wonk. Part of that blame can be shared by the Generals in the field, but the buck stops at his desk. If he was doing such a fine job in Iraq why was he forced out? I will never forget his claim that the early attacks were because of a few “dead-enders” as he put it.
That all said I am very happy that things appear to be turning around. Petraus 2012!: “If he could straighten out Iraq…”
November 29th, 2007 at 7:27 amWhich one’s Rummy?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:33 amJohn H and Kurt(t.i.)-
I agree. Rumsfeld had to do some very serious “multi-tasking” … and some of it “on the fly” during an unconventional war. Not to mention the constant flood of bile spewed at him from the MSM.
The man did what he could with the hand he was dealt … and hasn’t shrunk from any of the decisions he had to make.
I respect this man very much. As with President Bush, he was/is in the completely “thankless” position of laying the foundation for, while actually fighting an enemy that political and “Chamberlin-esque” dolts refuse to recognize and take seriously.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:39 amI thank God that Rumsfeld was in the chair on 9/11.
Some quotes of his I enjoy:
Don’t necessarily avoid sharp edges. Occasionally they are necessary to leadership.
If you try to please everybody, somebody’s not going to like it.
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
Treat each federal dollar as if it was hard earned; it was - by a taxpayer.
A quick bio:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/rumsfeld-bio.html
….
Pat, would a smile have killed you?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:43 amHe wanted to fight the war on the Cheap? I wasn’t aware that Rumsfeld held personal responsibility for the downsizing in the 8 prior years to this administration? He certainly was responsible for downsizing what amounts to military “middle management”. (and good riddence) However the actual size of our forces have been downsized considerably since teh first Gulf War…..would you have had Rumsfeld after 9-11 say, “Currently because of cuts we don’t have enough military personel to achieve our goals in the timeframe we want, but we’re going to try to anyway, because we recognize that there is a limited window of opportunity here.”
I’m sorry but the idea that any secdef should openly admit short comings in our defense system, just so he can pass the buck later if things get messed up, is both morally irresponsible and naive.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:43 amJust some follow up info I wish was more widely known some of the Accomplishments of Rumsfeld.
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/2006/sixyears/index.html
What I personally feel was most important is this section.
Look closely at:
II. SHAPING THE JOINT FORCE FOR ASYMETRIC WARFARE
III. MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
He may be remembered for how things went in Iraq, but much of that was NOT within his control, and he definately did not have the last say in much of what was done, and what resources he had available….but we he did in reorganizing the entire military, is perhaps some of the most ground breaking structural changes since the end of WW2.
The majority of people even inside the military below a certain pay grade may not fully appreicate how much this has changed the way our military does things, but those who have been around awhile do. We have gone from a very slow to react lumbering organization built from years and years of peace, and desire for larger personal budgets, to an organization that can rapidly react to world events. Is it still bureaucratic? Yes. But light years more advanced that before he came back to streamline it.
Rumsfeld is basically the CEO you want if you plan to hold a companies stock for 40 years, the press likes a CEO who does great this year, even if he causes the company to fold in 5 years….I plan on being part of America for more then 40 year personally. Rumsfeld in my mind is one of the top 3 secdefs in this nations history including when it was still the Secretary of War.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:13 amSteve in NC–That is a smile.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:17 amRummy is just another guy who was in the wrong job at the wrong time, but thank God he didn’t want to negotiate like some folks from the other side of the aisle would have wanted had they been in charge.
Churchill didn’t make everybody happy either, but he did what he thought he needed to do and could do with what he had.
None of us know shit about what he did and could do and we never will. Be happy it was him in the job and not a number of people it could have been. Thank him for his service and pray that the war effort keeps going the way it’s going. If Hillary gets elected, we will all wish Rummy was on the job.
Honestly, I’m not sure what was better. My time with Rummy and some other great movers and shakers, or when a bevy of hot college girls told my increasingly paunchy and pale middle-aged ass “it’s an honor to meet you”. Perks - every job needs them.
——————————————–
Hey, Pat, if it “works” for Jack Nicholson, it can work for you. Heh-heh!
November 29th, 2007 at 8:27 amRummy is more for the grunts than the chair polishers…….
Even though he had to make the “lesser of two evils” decisions , he is still welcome in my foxhole.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:55 am“Rummy is just another guy who was in the wrong job at the wrong time” WTF?
Don’t get that at all. I think the only other person I would have liked to see in the chair is Cheney.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:14 amKipp grows boring. He’s incapable of trotting out any original thoughts beyond the tired pre-programmed talking points of the Left. He tries to throw in some “I’m like a conservative” bs platitiudes as a bluff to endear and make himself sound reasonable once in a while, but that old tactic is just Kos Troll Training 101. Yeah, Kipp, we know you’re not just another Kos troll - your ‘doth protest too much” protestations have us all really conviced otherwise. Your amateur psyops are a complete and betraying waste of time.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:23 amWhile I too am an admirer of Rumsfeld, Pat, it’s gotta be the college girls….
November 29th, 2007 at 9:33 am“would you have had Rumsfeld after 9-11 say, “Currently because of cuts we don’t have enough military personel to achieve our goals in the timeframe we want, but we’re going to try to anyway, because we recognize that there is a limited window of opportunity here.”
Although I do agree that there were cubacks prior to his arrival, Rumsfeld didnt suffer from a lack of resources; He could of went in with much more troops ala the “Powell Doctrine”, but decided to make the Iraq invasion a lab experiment on how to do more with less and it blew up in his
November 29th, 2007 at 9:52 amface.
Pat, rethink yourself, you have disappointed Kipp.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:54 amRumsfeld had the insight to understand that the military needs to move more and more into counter insurgency, winning hearts and minds, interacting with locals etc. Some of his strongest critics are those who don’t want to deflect any resources away from massive tank formations and vast fleets. Sure enough, both are necessary but the former is more important in the GWOT, just look at the evidence from the surge.
He is accused of “fighting the war on the cheap”. One aspect of this is that he wants locals to fight for themselves, a vital component of COIN and necessary if the US liberators are not to become looked on as “occupiers”. It also reduces hardship on our military people which is just more evidence that he cares for military personnel.
He is accused of not putting enough boots on the ground. BS. Idiots like Shinseki wanted 400,000 troops in Iraq. First, the post cold war draw down by clinton meant we simple did not have enough forces to do that and, second, even at its peak, the surge did not get troop levels any where near that number but still has been dramatically successful.
Finally he was not “forced out” by his leaders. He was forced out by the Dem cocksuckers and the fucked up nature of partisan politics in our esteemed capitol. He was hated by democrats and to make the wheels of power run smoother he was replaced by Gates who was less of an irritant to democrats. A smart political move but not an indictment of his skills as sec def. It the same thing that happened to Peter Pace.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:07 amI-fatty,
I don’t ever claim to be a conservative. My views may come across at times like right leaning compared to other liberals. This is what you call a moderate. I am liberal and damn prowd of it but I don’t reside on the far left. View my blog, decide for yourself:
http://www.hornygreek.com/.com
November 29th, 2007 at 10:28 amNot to condemn Rummy as a person, but his tenure as Sec Def was disappointing. Sorry to find myself in agreement with Kipp & Tom: until he was booted, the war was being “lost.” His theories about cutting force strength and the number of troops needed in Iraq were not correct, based on the “correction” done after he left.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:30 ami thank God every day for what rummy did for our country and military,,,my son is alive today because of the improvements in equipment and training directly connected to this man,,after the destructive 90’s we now have the best military in the world(again)..thanx rummy and pat for what u 2 have done for my kids…my son just got back fm ramadi and no,,,i say again NO. purple hearts and all came home together..
November 29th, 2007 at 10:40 amI think Pat knows that that picture will forever keep on the Hollywood blacklist. Congrats on being there, Pat!
November 29th, 2007 at 10:52 amOne aspect of this is that he wants locals to fight for themselves, a vital component of COIN and necessary if the US liberators are not to become looked on as “occupiers”.
Problem is the locals were NOT ready to fight for themselves. The Army was disbanded(by our choice) and the Police forces evaporated.
So instead of “Surging” from the get go when this happened our forces retreated to large bases and left a vacuum not filled by the Iraqi security forces and instead was filled by the insurgents.
And I do remember hearing Dems and McCain screaming “We need more boots on the ground!” Bush said in reply that if asked for, they shall receive. So why didnt Rummy and his Generals ask?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:59 ami disagree with kipp and tom,, but then i am not toooo bright,, but ,, rummy did with what he had what he could,, one must remember that the intel,manpower,equipment,budget and much more came fm the previous admin…and all were deficiant in all categories,, only the 10th mt. division
November 29th, 2007 at 11:08 am“one must remember that the intel,manpower,equipment,budget and much more came fm the previous admin…and all were deficiant in all categories,,”
There was a whole year run-up to this war with all the lobbying and UN ass kissing, plenty of time to get the material and men needed, yet they were deficient? Then there was over two years of this “deficeincy” afterward? I cant buy that especially since when the “surge” was approved with the new honchos in charge the resources were magically there in a few months. Go figure.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:22 amThe charge of invading Iraq “on the cheap” refers to using insufficient forces during the invasion to allow a thorough occupation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki
The success of the surge with only a relatively modest increase in the number of boots on the ground supports this view, although that success has also been due to Iraqi’s up close and personal experiences with al Qaeda and coming to view the Americans as actually help rather than invaders.
We could not have fielded an invasion force the size of the one we wielded in the first Gulf war (~600K) due to the cuts in our forces made under the Clinton administration. Personally, I think one of the first mistakes Bush made was to not substantially increase the size of our military forces when he had the opportunity after 9/11.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:23 amCheney/Rumsfeld in 08
November 29th, 2007 at 11:24 am“Pat, it’s gotta be the college girls”
I bet he ask them to show their tits (I am out
)
November 29th, 2007 at 11:35 amtom,,, it takes 5 yrs to make a sgt.. and it takes 5 years to make a cop… to think that we could replace 250,000 troops that gore bragged about “firing” is nutz,,if my son had been in one of the clinton hummers he would be dead,, and if we would have found the WMD’s he would be dead or really messed up..the troop levels are just now getting to the point that most of the reserve dependence is falling off..and research and development of equipment and training is back in service..God bless our guard and reserves but their midlevel and above leadership lacked the experience in theater operations..butttt maybe i am wrong…
November 29th, 2007 at 11:43 amNice black leather jacket Pat.
I have one almost identical.
Despite your politics your still a cool dude. HA HA
November 29th, 2007 at 11:45 am“The charge of invading Iraq “on the cheap” refers to using insufficient forces during the invasion to allow a thorough occupation:”
Yes, thats what I meant…
“God bless our guard and reserves but their midlevel and above leadership lacked the experience in theater operations..”
IMHO that includes Rummy…
“although that success has also been due to Iraqi’s up close and personal experiences with al Qaeda and coming to view the Americans as actually help rather than invaders. ”
Agreed…
But I guess its all water (or blood) under the bridge now..
November 29th, 2007 at 11:56 amThanks for taking the time to alter my post. Only fascist, insecure assholes would do such a thing,
Kipp
November 29th, 2007 at 11:56 am“Be respectful of others and their opinions.” These are the bylaws of your own blog. Now I know what kind of democracy you want.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:58 amWell, since I’m not privy to the President’s plan all I can say is that he appears to have done what the President asked of him.
I’ve argued that the surge should have happened sooner but I’ve also heard some very convincing arguments as to why it was necessary to wait, and they are great arguments which will not be repeated in this very public forum.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:15 pmI read Kipp’s two complaints ( whines ) and then scrolled up to see what he was talking about. LMFAO. Welcome to Marine-style humor Kipp, grow a thicker skin if you can’t handle being fucked with in classic barracks-style fashion. Besides, why should this blog be an ad for yours?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pm“Paunchy and pale middle aged ass”
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
I lot of college age chicks dig dudes in their late 30’s and early 40’s.
They like the “experienced factor”
November 29th, 2007 at 12:51 pmTo all,
November 29th, 2007 at 1:08 pmLet’s cut through all the chatter and get to the basic fact of the Iraqi invasion. Those who called for 400,000 boots on the ground knew damn well that force was not going to be available (400,000 incountry, 400,000 refitting, and 40,000 or so intransit) without the calling up of the entire national guard and reserves and therefore were using this number as a backdoor excuse for not invading. Rummy and the generals went with what they had because they had to and if we want to fault Rummy for anything, it should be a failure to realize that the force structure reduction of the 90s was too extreme and that the army should be bumped back up to a 20 division equivalent. Things are not going to get easier in this century and it takes 2-5yrs to put together a combat ready brigade size or larger unit so the time to start the build up is now!
RVN68Mike
I believe the extra troops was supposed to have come from a coalition similar to 1991. Unfortunately that was never put together.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pmPat, you definitely got that Sgt.Joe Friday(Jack Webb)look down.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pm( thats a good thing)-
Bitching about Rumsfeld not sending in enough troops, especially while we are winning, is like complaining that the L.A.P.D. did not bring enough fire power or cops to the Bank of Anti-America armed robbery in the 90’s; you go to the fight with what you have. Here again like the response from the L.A.P.D., our troops have done more than they could have ever been expected to do, and are now reaping the rewards of all of their hard work.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:33 pm@Paul Ron
“Paunchy and pale middle aged ass”
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
I lot of college age chicks dig dudes in their late 30’s and early 40’s.
They like the “experienced factor”
—————————————————
That … and their money.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pmI suppose we could debate forever, but the bottom line to me
November 29th, 2007 at 2:04 pmis the powers to be thought everything would turn up roses
after we overthrew Iraq and were unprepared to handle the consequences when it did not.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. What about taking responsibility? No one said Rumsfeld was stupid, etc. No one denied the military was decimated after Clinton. What we said was he didn’t listen to the right military minds about how many troops were needed in Iraq, because he had this personal theory about using lesser numbers of troops. And his theory was wrong. Don’t ask me, ask someone like Gen. Powell, who knows about this kind of stuff.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:21 pmPat,
November 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pmYou were truly in the company of an American Statesman. Your comments on his character and contribution are consistent with my memory of his service to this country. No man is perfect, but few could have done better. I’m glad he was there when our country needed him. The armchair privates posting here poses a myopic view of circumstances and history, you Sir, can say you have met the man, and therefore are a far better judge of his character. History, will show the importance of his role, and if accurate will include his errors. In sum, our Nation is better off to have had him, than it would be without him. It is Clinton, who history will show as an abject failure, both personally and politically. Thanks for the great post
You said it lamplighter. Bush should of had a lot more heads roll…especially those who came up with the crappy intel on WMD…
November 29th, 2007 at 5:44 pmDig the Westies jacket.
Overall, I think Rummy made more good decisions than bad ones. His biggest mistake was counting on a muslim poplulation to be capable of enlightened self interest, and using far too light a hand.
Personally, I think Bremmer and the State Department are at least as much to blame as the Pentagon. We had a perfectly good example of how to conduct an occupation from Germany and Japan. (There was actually a short-lived insurgency in Germany, but it was quickly crushed by troops unconcerned with offending the enemy’s culture or religion.) We should have taken over the fuctions of government until they were ready to run their own country. Iraqis should’ve been trained on as close to a one-to-one basis as possible, then given responsibilty once they could handle it.
But, hindsight is 20/20, and Rummy had to make decisions based on what he knew at the time, and what he had available to do it. I’m hard pressed to think of anyone who could do better, although the list of those who would’ve done worse wraps around the equator.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pmOh and speaking of sensible, good looking college girls, good thing we have Young American’s Foundation here at VPI, and I met quite a few nice young ladies who planted 2,977 American Flags on September 11th this year.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:59 pmRummy’s the shit. Good times, Pat!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:33 pmThe success of the surge with only a relatively modest increase in the number of boots on the ground supports this view, although that success has also been due to Iraqi’s up close and personal experiences with al Qaeda and coming to view the Americans as actually help rather than invaders. Lone Wolf
Hardly alone Wolf as you state the conventional wisdom, which, BTW, is wrong as is the notion that if Rummy had sent 400,000 troops (which he didn’t have) the war would have gone better.
The Surge worked because it coincided with the Anbar Awakening and the fact ISF forces had been built uo to the point that there were now enough Iraqi troops to hold and build what American forces cleared.
The current state of increasing pacification would not have worked without all three elements existing at the same time-so all this talk about the war changing because Rummy was replaced is bullshit.
As to the effect of the failure to implement the Powell doctrine, this argument overlooks the fact that the other side gets a vote too. With 400,000 troops in Iraq the insurgents would have stood down, Iraqis would have seen no need to defend their country, America would have left in triumph and the insurgency would then have begun -and would have been more successful than this failed insurgency.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:35 pmEcho what Ranger said!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:12 pmRummy is the shit–I am so jealous of you, Pat!
“a bevy of hot college girls told my increasingly paunchy and pale middle-aged ass “it’s an honor to meet you”. Perks - every job needs them.”
Pat - you suck.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:32 pm“He was very pleased to hear that someone in Hollywood actually had the audicity to make a pro-war series, and that Showtime had bought it no less. After we spoke, someone grabbed this snapshot, for which I am grateful.”
I am sure he was. We need more people like you out there Pat. It is good to see that you are getting the respect that you deserve for doing so as well.
It is a great photo and you should frame it.
“Honestly, I’m not sure what was better. My time with Rummy and some other great movers and shakers, or when a bevy of hot college girls told my increasingly paunchy and pale middle-aged ass “it’s an honor to meet you”. Perks - every job needs them.”
Hell Pat enjoy it all. It is an honor for them to meet you. Its all good. Ya, still got it goin’ on. Glad you were there.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:50 pmKipp
I-fatty,
I don’t ever claim to be a conservative. My views may come across at times like right leaning compared to other liberals. This is what you call a moderate. I am liberal and damn prowd of it but I don’t reside on the far left. View my blog, decide for yourself:
http://www.hornygreek.com/.com
That was a very interesting blog Kipp . . .
Kipp
Thanks for taking the time to alter my post. Only fascist, insecure assholes would do such a thing,
Kipp
Kipp
“Be respectful of others and their opinions.” These are the bylaws of your own blog. Now I know what kind of democracy you want.
Kip, you forgot about the other part of the bylaws:
“Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.”
November 29th, 2007 at 8:00 pmD. Rumsfeld was a very shrewd, knowledgeable and honored Sec. of State.
The war in Iraq will be rivaled with none other as the most difficult…one reason being… the multiple goals that were on the table to be achieved
One intermediate goal to surface that I believe he orchestrated, was the arena where this war on terrorism should be exercised…. I’ll use a simple analogy to describe a tributary:.. He cut a blood vein of the world terrorist landscape at 1 of 2 focal points known as Iraq. This incision allowed for the poisonous terrorist mentality and activity to flow as if a main artery were cut. I give thought to psyops playing a role in creating such a frenzied walk of death for the ignorant insurgency to Iraq…Many of the elite terrorist hardliners, engineers and strategist were vaporised, water boarded
or as now are aligning themselves with a winner.
In the end his watch with his expertise was ready to give way to the newer counter-insurgency, a philosophy with which its concepts had fully matured and were ready for indoctrination
November 29th, 2007 at 9:18 pmKipp,
lets try real hard to be honest. Pat dollard has. He tells you what he belives and he makes the rules for this private domain. Too many leftist sites dont have the courage to tell you they have a bias. They pretend to be open to any and all ideas and it just aint true! Pat is open to mostly anything but he stops at certain things. thats his perogative. Thats the idea behind private property, just because it exists in a democracy , doesnt mean its management is done democratically.
As for rumsfeld, I havent really followed his doings. Since the MSM hates him and says he is a failure, I tend to want to go the opposite. we all know the media hates any republican unless he is a liberal like arlen spector.
I know he has alot of experience in plpolitics and that he respects the military enough to wnat to do whats right by it and for this country. Could he have been a failure?, Perhaps! Given all the factors involved Im sure he did his best and thats all anyone can ask for. I liked his strong talk, it gave me confidence that he had some cojones, something that is lacking amongst our political elite.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:19 pmKipp,
I guess you’ve never been on a ship or in a barracks. Standard jokes… but your reaction only proves what everyone was thinking about you.
LMAO at your web page… Im impressed
I especially like the bylaw about deleting inane leftist drivel will be deleted. Goes to show you, liberals read only what they want…
November 29th, 2007 at 9:34 pmRummy rules. GWB’s old crowd was great.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:48 pmKipp,
Do you honestly believe that there was ANY chance of the Iraqis being “pro American” at the beginning of the war? Sure Rummy made some mistakes, just as everyone does, but the Iraqis had to learn that their “fellow muslims” were bad guys the “hard way”. The fact is that the war developed the only way it could have. Obviously the Iraqis began to side and believe their fellow muslims in the beginning only to find out that the radical Islamist were the wrong choice. That is not Rumsfeld’s fault, it was inevitable. The mistake Rumsfeld made was the ROE that limited our response in the beginning, and one can even argue that it was THAT tactic that made our current alliance possible. Remember everything happens for a reason.
God Bless ya Pat, Good Work!
November 30th, 2007 at 5:58 amPat actually was in Iraq longer than Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney combined. No?
November 30th, 2007 at 7:04 amKipp
What is with the gay porn link? Very disturbing.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:23 amWhats up Pat! Long time no see man, very impressive seeing you with Mr.Rumsfeld. You are definately working your way to the top and the next picture I see will no doubt be you with GW Bush. I tried to call the other day but obviously you were busy. Just trying to check in on you, I am up here in Quantico now and I am only about 30 minutes away from DC. If you need a place to stay or just want to hang out and shoot the shit let me know. Shoot me an email sometime and I will get you up here for a tour so you can see what it is the officers do for training before they get shipped out to Iraq. Talk to you later man.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:30 amNice to see you in Civilian clothes and not getting shot at in Ramadi!
November 30th, 2007 at 7:31 amRegardless of what we think of Rummy (I’m personally glad he served as SecDef), kudos to Pat for a well-deserved conversation with Rummy. Pat was among the first to surge the truth from Iraq to the world and this was a great honor for Rummy to get to meet Pat.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:59 pmHi,
Wow…moving and shaking indeed! 
“hot college girls…Its honor to meet you”
DANG! Rock On!
Peace!
November 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pmDan2
__
http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/
Kipp
I-fatty,
I don’t ever claim to be a conservative. My views may come across at times like right leaning compared to other liberals. This is what you call a moderate. I am liberal and damn prowd of it but I don’t reside on the far left. View my blog, decide for yourself:
http://www.hornygreek.com/.com
November 29th, 2007 at 10:28 am
November 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pmGay Porn? YUCK!!! figures gaygreek
I still like Rummy. Don’t fucking care what the libs say about him…he’s still the bomb in my book. Damn, Pat, you sure get around…That’s some big-time elbow-rubbing there.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:12 pm