kallend 2,146 #1 February 20, 2007 BLUFFTON, S.C. (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Monday the war in Iraq has been mismanaged for years and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be remembered as one of the worst in history. "We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement — that's the kindest word I can give you — of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war," the Arizona senator told an overflow crowd of more than 800 at a retirement community near Hilton Head Island, S.C. "The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously." McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, complained that Rumsfeld never put enough troops on the ground to succeed in Iraq. "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," McCain said to applause. First prize for stating the obvious goes to John McCain.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymiles 3 #2 February 20, 2007 McCain is trying to get on the right side of history. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #3 February 20, 2007 Nice contrast to last November, when he said: "While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service" And since you're all gushy about McCain, what do you think about his opinion that we can succeed in Iraq with additional troops? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #4 February 20, 2007 Side Bar. Sorry, did it say secretariy of defense How's that work then? when you go around attacking (well actually getting other people to do the actually work of attacking) other countries that posed no direct threat to his country?.... Oh Well.... C'est la vie (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #5 February 20, 2007 QuoteSorry, did it say secretariy of defense For most of the US's history, the job title was "Secretary of War". It was only changed to "Secretary of Defense" a few decades ago. Obviously the job description hasn't been updated yet. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #6 February 20, 2007 We're going to get so thumped for this....... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #7 February 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteSorry, did it say secretariy of defense For most of the US's history, the job title was "Secretary of War". It was only changed to "Secretary of Defense" a few decades ago. Try again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #8 February 20, 2007 Quote Nice contrast to last November, when he said: "While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service" so what's the problem? McCain said that at the time Rumsfled was given the boot. Mccain was just being polite in that situation. what was he supposed to say? "Good riddance, asshole?" Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #9 February 20, 2007 >Try again. He's right. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy were combined into the Secretary of Defense in 1947. Two non-cabinet positions, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, were created under him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #10 February 20, 2007 Quote>Try again. He's right. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy were combined into the Secretary of Defense in 1947. Two non-cabinet positions, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, were created under him. Right? Two jobs were merged into one. Sounds like it was more than a mere change in title. And does anyone really consider 1947 a few decades ago? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 February 20, 2007 Quote McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, complained that Rumsfeld never put enough troops on the ground to succeed in Iraq. "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," McCain said to applause. First prize for stating the obvious goes to John McCain. Sure you don't want to restate this, John? If his solution to Rumsfield's failure was "more," he's even worse. McCain seemed to have gone Perot on us this last week. Between this poorly timed hawkishness and the abortion attack, he seems to have pissed away the Democratic crossover votes to try to get wingnuts that he either already had or never would get. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #12 February 20, 2007 QuoteNice contrast to last November, when he said: "While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service" And since you're all gushy about McCain, what do you think about his opinion that we can succeed in Iraq with additional troops? I'm not gushy about McCain, just noting that this is a remarkable statement of the obvious. So he was polite about R's retirement, so what? I think he's wrong about additional troops. It might have worked in 2003-4 but not now.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #13 February 20, 2007 Hey, you know what they say.... The best defense is a good offense! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #14 February 20, 2007 QuoteQuote>Try again. He's right. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy were combined into the Secretary of Defense in 1947. Two non-cabinet positions, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, were created under him. Right? Two jobs were merged into one. Sounds like it was more than a mere change in title. And does anyone really consider 1947 a few decades ago? I remember it well, just a few decades ago. Facts are important and should be checked before drawing conclusions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #15 February 20, 2007 QuoteQuote>Try again. He's right. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy were combined into the Secretary of Defense in 1947. Two non-cabinet positions, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, were created under him. Right? Two jobs were merged into one. Sounds like it was more than a mere change in title. And does anyone really consider 1947 a few decades ago? What, are you bored or something? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #16 February 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote>Try again. He's right. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy were combined into the Secretary of Defense in 1947. Two non-cabinet positions, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, were created under him. Right? Two jobs were merged into one. Sounds like it was more than a mere change in title. And does anyone really consider 1947 a few decades ago? I remember it well, just a few decades ago. Remember it well? How old were you in 1947? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,483 #17 February 20, 2007 First it was just the Army who was in charge of all Military Affairs (war). The new colonial Navy took exception and in 1798, the SecNav was added to the Cabinet. Insert WWII, The Army Air Corp became the U.S. Army Air Force (~1941/2) and two things happened in 1947: 1. The U.S. Army Air Force became the U.S. Air Force (becoming a different branch) wanting a similar seat on the Cabinet as the Army and Navy, therefore... 2. The Cabinet Position of Secretary of Defense was created and all three departments (Army, Navy, Air Force) were re-organized as non-Cabinet "Secretary" positions under the Secretary of Defense evolving to this: http://www.dod.mil/odam/omp/pubs/GuideBook/Pdf/DoD.PDFNobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gontleman 0 #18 February 20, 2007 QuoteAnd does anyone really consider 1947 a few decades ago?5 decades. That's more than a couple, but "several" seems like too many. "Few" appears to be the winner here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #19 February 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Try again. He's right. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy were combined into the Secretary of Defense in 1947. Two non-cabinet positions, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, were created under him. Right? Two jobs were merged into one. Sounds like it was more than a mere change in title. And does anyone really consider 1947 a few decades ago? I remember it well, just a few decades ago. Remember it well? How old were you in 1947? Older than you, apparently.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #20 February 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteAnd does anyone really consider 1947 a few decades ago?5 decades. That's more than a couple, but "several" seems like too many. "Few" appears to be the winner here. Five decades? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #21 February 20, 2007 <> Yeap, and the best (easiest) offense is against a militarily weak nation bthat possed NO threat to US (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #22 February 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Try again. He's right. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy were combined into the Secretary of Defense in 1947. Two non-cabinet positions, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, were created under him. Right? Two jobs were merged into one. Sounds like it was more than a mere change in title. And does anyone really consider 1947 a few decades ago? I remember it well, just a few decades ago. Remember it well? How old were you in 1947? Older than you, apparently. Considering you remember it well, I'm guessing you were at least four. Are you really 64? Or at least 63? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #23 February 20, 2007 QuoteFive decades? You're REALLY scraping bottom trying to pick a fight. You must not have thought of any fake quotes to manufacture today, huh? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #24 February 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Try again. He's right. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy were combined into the Secretary of Defense in 1947. Two non-cabinet positions, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, were created under him. Right? Two jobs were merged into one. Sounds like it was more than a mere change in title. And does anyone really consider 1947 a few decades ago? I remember it well, just a few decades ago. Remember it well? How old were you in 1947? Older than you, apparently. Considering you remember it well, I'm guessing you were at least four. Are you really 64? Or at least 63? Next month I shall be part of the SOS world record attempts at Lake Wales. More than that is private information. When Winston Churchill, a winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, referred to "the few" he was talking about more than two thousand pilots. Nitpicking over the meaning of "few" just shows that you do not have a valid argument and, as usual, just want a fight.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #25 February 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd does anyone really consider 1947 a few decades ago? I remember it well, just a few decades ago. Remember it well? How old were you in 1947? Older than you, apparently. Considering you remember it well, I'm guessing you were at least four. Are you really 64? Or at least 63? Next month I shall be part of the SOS world record attempts at Lake Wales. More than that is private information. You do seem particularly reluctant to admit when you're just blowing smoke. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
