Rumsfield bitchslaps Gumby

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,504
185
63
Bowling Green Ky
to point out yet another flagrant lie by "Gumby the Grifer.

The Grift:
In his speech, Obama gave a detailed history of the Afghanistan war starting with the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. He argued that the Iraq war drew needed resources away from Afghanistan, allowing the situation to deteriorate since 2003.

"Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq," Obama said. "Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive."

Gibbs today-
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained Wednesday that Obama was referring to requests that came in during 2008, and suggested Rumsfeld was on thin ice with his criticism.

--But if Obama were referring to the 2008 period, he would seem to have been pointing the finger at his own secretary of defense, Robert Gates, who served in the same position in the previous administration.

Rumsfield--
In a rare break in his public silence since leaving the Pentagon, Rumsfeld rejected the claim as a "bald misstatement" and "disservice" that cannot go unanswered.
"Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as secretary of defense, deserves a response," Rumsfeld said in a written statement. "I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006."
"The president's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan," Rumsfeld said.
He urged Congress to review the claim in the upcoming debate to "determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied."
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,506
270
83
Victory Lane
Dont worry rummy

we will find all that out when we put George W , Dicky , and Rummy on trial

they are going to have to prove alot of things.:scared

could be some jail time involved with this mess
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,221
1,465
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
The Grift:
In his speech, Obama gave a detailed history of the Afghanistan war starting with the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. He argued that the Iraq war drew needed resources away from Afghanistan, allowing the situation to deteriorate since 2003.

You are disputing this????

:mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07:
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,506
270
83
Victory Lane
If its good enough for Rummy to be pissed about

I guess DTB tows the same line

holy shitballs :mj07:
 

shawn555

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 11, 2000
7,190
130
63
berlin md
object>
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,506
270
83
Victory Lane
Got top admit though , Rummy was one slick son of a beech.

Guarantee he could jump in a shit barrel and come out smilling of roses.

he had nothing to fear during his reign of power
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,504
185
63
Bowling Green Ky
You are disputing this????

:mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07::mj07:
I'll put it up again and see if you can tell what is flagrantly disputed. I'll use a little high-lighting to help you. ;)


to point out yet another flagrant lie by "Gumby the Grifer.

The Grift:
In his speech, Obama gave a detailed history of the Afghanistan war starting with the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. He argued that the Iraq war drew needed resources away from Afghanistan, allowing the situation to deteriorate since 2003.

Quote by Gumby-highlighted

"Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq," Obama said. "Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive."

Gibbs today-
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained Wednesday that Obama was referring to requests that came in during 2008, and suggested Rumsfeld was on thin ice with his criticism.

--But if Obama were referring to the 2008 period, he would seem to have been pointing the finger at his own secretary of defense, Robert Gates, who served in the same position in the previous administration.

Rumsfield--
In a rare break in his public silence since leaving the Pentagon, Rumsfeld rejected the claim as a "bald misstatement" and "disservice" that cannot go unanswered.

Quote/bitchslap by Rummy

"Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as secretary of defense, deserves a response," Rumsfeld said in a written statement. "I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006."
"The president's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan," Rumsfeld said.
He urged Congress to review the claim in the upcoming debate to "determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.
========================

Now what do find amusing about an inept grifter trying to shuck his responsibilty on lying about someone else??

Elaborate please--
 

shawn555

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 11, 2000
7,190
130
63
berlin md
The Defense Secretary We Have

By William Kristol

Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A33

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

-- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,

in a town hall meeting with soldiers

at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, Dec. 8.

Actually, we have a pretty terrific Army. It's performed a lot better in this war than the secretary of defense has. President Bush has nonetheless decided to stick for now with the defense secretary we have, perhaps because he doesn't want to make a change until after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.

Contrast the magnificent performance of our soldiers with the arrogant buck-passing of Rumsfeld. Begin with the rest of his answer to Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard:

"Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe -- it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment. I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip."

So the Army is in charge. "They" are working at it. Rumsfeld? He happens to hang out in the same building: "I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. . . . And that is what the Army has been working on." Not "that is what we have been working on." Rather, "that is what the Army has been working on." The buck stops with the Army.

At least the topic of those conversations in the Pentagon isn't boring. Indeed, Rumsfeld assured the troops who have been cobbling together their own armor, "It's interesting." In fact, "if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Good point. Why have armor at all? Incidentally, can you imagine if John Kerry had made such a statement a couple of months ago? It would have been (rightly) a topic of scorn and derision among my fellow conservatives, and not just among conservatives.

Perhaps Rumsfeld simply had a bad day. But then, what about his statement earlier last week, when asked about troop levels? "The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control." Really? Well, "the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that General Franks and General Abizaid wanted."

Leave aside the fact that the issue is not "the number of troops we had for the invasion" but rather the number of troops we have had for postwar stabilization. Leave aside the fact that Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for that task -- and that his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available. Leave aside the fact that Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003. And leave aside the fact that if our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11.

In any case, decisions on troop levels in the American system of government are not made by any general or set of generals but by the civilian leadership of the war effort. Rumsfeld acknowledged this last week, after a fashion: "I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person and I guess that's fine." Except he fails to take responsibility.

All defense secretaries in wartime have, needless to say, made misjudgments. Some have stubbornly persisted in their misjudgments. But have any so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck?

In Sunday's New York Times, John F. Burns quoted from the weekly letter to the families of his troops by Lt. Col. Mark A. Smith, an Indiana state trooper who now commands the 2nd Battalion, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, stationed just south of Baghdad:

"Ask yourself, how in a land of extremes, during times of insanity, constantly barraged by violence, and living in conditions comparable to the stone ages, your marines can maintain their positive attitude, their high spirit, and their abundance of compassion?" Col. Smith's answer: "They defend a nation unique in all of history: One of principle, not personality; one of the rule of law, not landed gentry; one where rights matter, not privilege or religion or color or creed. . . . They are United States Marines, representing all that is best in soldierly virtues."

These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have.

The writer is editor of the Weekly Standard.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,221
1,465
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
Wayne: Are you trying to tell me that Obama is lying about Military Leaders asking Rumsfeld for more troops in Afghanistan? Seriously? Was your head that deep in the sand?

Your original post points to Gibbs (somebody else) "suggesting" something about Obama's comments. Keep reaching. You've loved the word "grifter" ever since you heard it on FoxNews....too bad you can't make it work in every post.

Do you disagree with this plan, or would you rather do the never-ending Bush plan? If he brings them home, you complain. If he keeps the troops there, you complain. You really don't care about the action, just how you are going to complain about it.

I've been against a ground war since DAY ONE. Doesn't matter who is in office. I don't want to spread our military out fighting an unwinnable "war". I think Obama has been worthless up to this point, but I really think this is something he can finally build upon.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Rummy has been ensconced in DC since 1963, he served a total of 20 years in the US Navay and Naval Reserves, he knows his way around the block. He knows the reindeer games played in that town.

Business
From 1977 to 1985 Rumsfeld served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G. D. Searle & Company, a worldwide pharmaceutical company based in Skokie, Illinois. During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld led the company's financial turnaround, thereby earning awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). In 1985, Searle was sold to Monsanto Company. Rumsfeld is believed to have earned around $12 million from this sale.<SUP id=cite_ref-Beltway_lion_25-0 class=reference>[26]</SUP>
Rumsfeld served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation from 1990 to 1993. A leader in broadband transmission, distribution, and access control technologies for cable, satellite and terrestrial broadcasting applications, the company pioneered the development of the first all-digital high-definition television (HDTV) technology. After taking the company public and returning it to profitability, Rumsfeld returned to private business in late 1993.
From January 1997 until being sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense in January 2001, Rumsfeld served as Chairman of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Gilead Sciences is the developer of Tamiflu (Oseltamivir), which is used in the treatment of bird flu.<SUP id=cite_ref-26 class=reference>[27]</SUP> As a result, Rumsfeld's holdings in the company grew significantly when avian flu became a subject of popular anxiety during his later term as Secretary of Defense. Following standard practice, Rumsfeld recused himself from any decisions involving Gilead, and he directed the Pentagon's General Counsel issue instructions outlining what he could and could not be involved in if there were an avian flu pandemic and the Pentagon had to respond.<SUP id=cite_ref-27 class=reference>[28]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-28 class=reference>[29]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-GR_29-0 class=reference>[30]</SUP>


27 ^ Press Releases: Gilead

28 ^ USATODAY.com - Roche, Gilead Sciences resolve Tamiflu conflict

29 Defense Secretary Rumsfeld sees growth in Gilead stake - October 31, 2005

30 "Bird Flu: A Corporate Bonanza for the Biotech Industry". GlobalResearch.ca. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20051106&articleId=1190. Retrieved 2008-05-24.

RUMMY
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Well, apparently I have two choices with this story. First, to believe Rumsfeld is telling me the truth about this, or anything. Second, to believe that Rumsfeld was aware of all the requests that were actually made to the defense department under his watch, and that there were absolutely no requests from any commanders in the field for additional firepower for the war in Afghanistan.

Neither seems a probability to me, going off past and present history, with Rumsfeld.

And, as for the disservice to the troops in Afghanistan, seems that Obama has done more for them with this last request than Rumsfeld ever did during his tenure. Of course, to hear him tell it, nobody every asked him for anything in Afghanistan for six years. Does anyone think that's possible? Really? I mean, I wouldn't doubt that the administration, Rummy included, may have hidden those reports for the good of their cause to be in Iraq, but I sincerely doubt the picture he paints. Hey, maybe those requests were lost in the million e-mail loss at the White House. Or maybe they were stored on those computers that were destroyed without the data on them being backed up. I note he didn't mention anything about pulling troops out of the theater to send them to Iraq, though. I don't think even Rumsfeld can pull that one off...

As for the bitch slapping? I would guess there would be a few family members of some former troops that wouldn't mind a crack at Rummy at this point.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,504
185
63
Bowling Green Ky
Wayne: Are you trying to tell me that Obama is lying about Military Leaders asking Rumsfeld for more troops in Afghanistan? Seriously? Was your head that deep in the sand?

Your original post points to Gibbs (somebody else) "suggesting" something about Obama's comments. Keep reaching. You've loved the word "grifter" ever since you heard it on FoxNews....too bad you can't make it work in every post.

Do you disagree with this plan, or would you rather do the never-ending Bush plan? If he brings them home, you complain. If he keeps the troops there, you complain. You really don't care about the action, just how you are going to complain about it.

I've been against a ground war since DAY ONE. Doesn't matter who is in office. I don't want to spread our military out fighting an unwinnable "war". I think Obama has been worthless up to this point, but I really think this is something he can finally build upon.

Ok enlighten us--All I know was Gibbs answer was a loser-
--if you have any verification it will certainly beat his reply. I'd like to know the answer myself and see which is the liar here- Gumby or Rummy--any light you can shed would be appreciated--

--but "my head is in the sand" is not verification.
and until someone comes up with better answer than gibber looks likes O owes us yet another "I mis spoke"
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top