More and more in the military are asking for Rumsfeld to resign due to there view that Rumsfeld is incompetent.
2006-09-25 13:43:05 · 8 answers · asked by ridingdragon 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
If this is a multiple choice question, I pick, "None of the Above."
The FACT is, the official policy to remove Saddam from power was initiated during Bill Clinton's last term. Apparently, he was too concerned about his legacy to actually do anything about it.
It's a sad commentary when a leader does nothing and slides by vs. a leader who has the courage to stand up and fight back - and the leader with the initiative gets blasted constantly.
The people of this nation better realize that the Islamic threats are not to be taken lightly.
As I've said before, in order to kill the cockroaches, we first have to get them to come out of the woodwork - better Iraq than New York.
I'm not an avid Rumsfeld fan, but we must remember that this is a whole new type of war - like none before it - and the ex-officers who make the most noise and controversy are the ones who get to be on television the most. Try and remember, there can be no expert method on how to best defeat the ideology of the Islamic radicals based on previous experience. There are only opinions.
2006-09-25 14:08:32 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is the commander and chief but Rumsfeld is the one leading or planning the strategies to win or loose a attack! They are both highly incompetent. Bush is to be blamed for making the decision to attack Iraq and Rumsfeld for not planning and executing good strategies!
The madness in Iraq shows that Rumsfeld did not plan for a thing! He just sent the troops there to bomb the country. He has also set the tone that civilian life does not matter do what ever you want. Personally they all should be tried for war crimes and Rumsfeld's butt should be placed right in the center of the worst area in Iraq and left there!
2006-09-25 14:06:39 · answer #2 · answered by rose 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The people called insurgents are to blame, not Bush or Rumsfeld.
2006-09-25 13:45:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
clinton if he had of killed bin laden when he had him instead of taking that 'campaign contribution' from the rich saudi prince who by the way was a supporter of bin laden then bush would have never had to engage iraq....consider this...the intel bush had to base his decision on, the same decision supported by dem's and rep's alike, was gathered under the clinton admin.....but of course you did know all of those facts didn't you. not to mention ms. albright contacting the pakistani prez and telling him we were going to take bin laden out....yeah...its all the rep's, bush's and rumsfield's fault..buy that one and i have a bridge for you to buy.
2006-09-25 14:12:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both
2006-09-25 14:18:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are both responsible. I would go after a few more while we are at it. Pearle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rice, .... Weasels all.
2006-09-25 14:12:01 · answer #6 · answered by planksheer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, all people of USA are to be blamed since you are selected them to be your leader.
2006-09-25 13:53:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither one is more to blame than THIS group!...
http://www.rense.com/general58/suspre.htm
And, it's not about a "war on terror". It's REALLY about THIS!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm
2006-09-25 14:01:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋