Sponsors

Rumsfeld's Arrogance Email Print

Watching Mr Rumsfeld on Larry King live, just made my blood boil, after being disabled by actions he approved of as Chief of Staff and as the Secretary of Defense in 1974 and 1975. I admit I do not have much use for him or his right hand man, Dick Cheney, for those of you who are not aware of it, they became a team in the Office of Economic Opportunity in the Nixon Administration and it was a Cabinet level post. Cheney was so good at doing what he did, that when Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense in 1975, Cheney became the White House Chief of Staff for President Ford, gaining his own seat on the National Security Council due to the promotion.

These men of the Nixon Admninistration and the Ford Administration have a long history of under handed government dealings. In the past they condoned or actually approved of violations of the Nuremberg Codes of 1947 in regards to human experiments, with chemical weapons such as mustard agents, nerve agents, Sarim, BZ  and drugs such as LSD, PCP and anything else the CIA wanted to attempt.They could have objected to the continuation of the program, but alas they did not, so the program continued, with Rumsfeld even helping the CIA fund the programs in 1975 as Sec of Defense. When they got caught later in 1975 by the department of the Army Inspector Generals Staff, the Army and the CIA apologized, Rumsfeld and DOD kept silent.

Fast forward to 1997 and a group called PNAC, a group of Neocons that wanted President Clinton to invade Iraq, some of the names on the signature block, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, William Kristol the current head of PNAC. Of course Clinton never invaded.

Then in 2001 PNAC had powerful members of their group nominated to serve in the Bush Administration Cheney (elected)  Rumsfeld to Secretary of Defense (again) Wolfowitz as his deputy, now they could invade Iraq themselves, but then 9/11 happened and the fall of the Taliban came first and foremost, but they still managed to siphon off some of the funds for the Afghan war and build up Kuwait for the coming invasion of Iraq, they wanted.

The Taliban quickly fell, then the drumbeat to war, began in earnest, much like today's Iran nuclear mess, seems like Deja Vu all over again. The people who warned against using to small of a military force were dismissed, they even fired a white house economic guy who stated that the war might cost 100 billion dollars, they claimed he was way off base and the numbers were wrong, it would not even be close to that amount, that was the only part they got right, we are heading towards 400 billion now aren't we? I remember Wolfowitz claiming it would not cost more than one billion and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war and the rebuilding of the country.

I remember Rumsfeld telling a SP4 in Iraq that you "go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want"  since it was a war of choice, why couldn't they wait until they had enough armor for vehicles and troops?

Rumsfeld was complaining about having to sign three letters to fallen soldier's families, aw shucks that's right, people complained when they found out that DOD was using an automatic signature pen to do his signature on the letters. When I was in, I had to write letters to my fallen troops families. Automatic pen hell, I was lucky to find a pen half the time.

Rumsfeld and Cheney have brought terms like torture, renditions, dog interrogations, prisoner abuse, GITMO, they have caused more damage to America's reputation that any other men in history.

Along the way they have found a way to keep the enlisted men they harmed in those chemical weapons and drug tests from getting their veteran benefits, they have just kept the information bottled up inside of DOD not to be released until 2009, after they are out of office and the Bush 43 administration is out to pasture.

There should be some way to hold them personally liable for the financial suffering they have caused these disabled veterans and the surviving widows and children, if there is, does anyone know what it is? Can they be sued as indivduals or are they exempt for the conspiracy to deny these people their government benefits?


KEYWORDS: , , , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

Poll

Cheney and Rumsfeld should
be allowed to be personally sued 7%
prosecuted for their role in the conspiracy to deny benefits 31%
fired by W 1%
impeached by Congress 56%
move to Cypress and become neighbors with Savant 1%

Votes: 51
Results | Other Polls
< NSA,CIA, and cocaine: 3 birds with 1 stone | Bush Yoyos While U.S. Burns: An Interview With Economist Jared Bernstein >
 Display:
Secretary Rumsfeld and the top brass at the Pentagon  are all using the same line when they speak to the press about the emerging investigations of the killing of unarmed civilians in Iraq. Defending our military's behavior, they all quote a 99.9% number of "good" troops and then add some euphamism about the tiny percentage of "bad apples." General Chiarelli, for example,  "99.9% of them perform their jobs magnificently."

As a veteran, I know how honorable the people are with whom I served. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. And I agree that the overwhelming majority of our troops are doing their best to protect the lives of innocent civilians. But, they've been sent into a quagmire for which they WERE NOT trained, for which they WERE NOT properly armed, and for which there WERE NOT enough troops to do a good job.

If you want to point the finger at the 00.1% of the real bad apples in this war, just go right to the top. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. If we got rid of those three bad apples, the rest of the bunch would probably be just fine. And we'd get our butts out of Iraq as quickly as possible.

Craig Wiesner Educational Products for Peace and Social Justice www.reachandteach.com

by accidentalactivist on 06/02/2006 02:06:00 PM EST

 Display: