2007-01-03 07:10:13 · 20 answers · asked by billnted 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I qualify what I'm about to say by telling you that I am a strong supporter of the current administration and the war in Iraq.
Rumsfeld was neither a bad man nor was he corrupt. He was, in a word, "Inept." His naval career was at best lackluster.
We've heard it said time and again by Ms Rice, that "Mistakes have been made." But those mistakes were never fully clarified. I can tell you through my own experience and personal resources that one of the biggest mistakes was immediately after it was originally presented to the Joint Chiefs to come up with a plan. They did their jobs. They presented the Secretary with the plan and their recommendation for the number of boots on the ground that would be needed to do the job. Mr. Rumsfeld then cut in half that recommendation and presented it to the Commander In Chief, who then approved and signed off on the plan. That Mr. Rumsfeld would later refuse to adjust the battle plans as things unfolded was not entirely his own doing, but does speak volumes and is so reminiscent of his naval career as an officer, it's just not funny. It is tragic.
2007-01-03 07:38:32 · answer #1 · answered by Doc 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't corruption imply being a bad man?
Rumsfeld is an incompetent failure. Whether or not you agree with the war in Iraq, one must agree that Rumsfeld's plan was sorely lacking. Since he promoted war, he should have at least had a properly designed plan. Instead, he failed to give enough troops and completely lacked a post-invasion plan. Furthermore, an unwillingness to adapt to changing conditions should not be a trait of a leader. Rumsfeld would not admit and correct his mistakes; instead, he incompetently pressed on.
2007-01-03 15:13:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Egotistical control freak that wouldn't let the generals do their jobs.
Refused to listen to people on the ground or beleive there was anyone that understood what was needed more than him. Micromanaged the crap out of the war until we were at a virtual stalemate with the enemy.
I don't think he is inherently a "bad" person. He was just not very good at the particular job the president gave him. I'm sure he is good at managing smaller operations where he can control every detail, but this was too complex for him to manage and he did not have the insight to accept that things were not going well and his strategies were a failure.
2007-01-03 15:18:03 · answer #3 · answered by Ryan 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Donald Rumsfeld is a good person who made a few mistakes, the Liberals in congress used those mistakes to harass him. He resigned because he did not want to put up with anymore of the liberal Garbage, stupidity, and ignorance!!
2007-01-03 15:28:57 · answer #4 · answered by FEVER 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Rumsfield is a person that I feel has lost his mind during all this war. I can't believe any man with a right mind can say and do the terrible things he has put out orders for our troops, to be brought home a plane load of caskets with flags draped over them and come back so maimed and with out a warped mind.
I think the man has completely lost his mind during this preemptive strike war that broke our 2nd Constitution.
2007-01-03 15:32:44 · answer #5 · answered by Nicki 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm wondering why being corrupt wouldn't put someone in the "bad" category for you. Anyway, he's not just corrupt -- he condones torture and has really f*cked our troops with his abandonment of the U.S. military's long-standing and well-tested doctrine of attacking enemies with overwhelming force, to say nothing of his support for an ill-advised war in the first place.
Bad, bad, bad.
2007-01-03 15:33:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Neither, he is a smart and honest man. The liberal controlled media knows this, but they want to get liberals elected to government offices so they try to convince voters otherwise. For example the always bring up that no WMT's have been found in Iraq, but rarely do they mention that Bill Clinton said " one thing that is for certain is that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction on the day that I left office".
2007-01-03 15:18:34 · answer #7 · answered by RegularGuy 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
A corrupt bad man.
2007-01-03 15:13:50 · answer #8 · answered by wisdomforfools 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
All career politicians are corrupt.
So therefor he is both corrupt and bad.However is yet another in a line of many scape goats for the Bush administration.
2007-01-03 15:22:43 · answer #9 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
A scapegoat.
Not that he was an angel, but he was fed to the wolves by the administration to give themselves some breathing room.
2007-01-03 15:13:14 · answer #10 · answered by Zafrod 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋