Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
He should have signed the letters. Big deal. Why is this primarily important to people who are always looking for a slam on Rumsfeld, and (seemingly, from what I've seen) unimportant to the supposed victims?
|
OK. We agree. I never said it was a huge deal, if you look at my posts, I just said it showed a real "tin ear." I take it you agree.
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Incredibly sharp and focused, with aims and goals that match up well with mine, a no-nonsense way of dealing with things, and an unwillingness to allow form to triumph over substance. How many people would have even tried to give an honest answer to the soldier's question about armor? I can think of several in his position in the past who would have stammered a quick "we'll look into it" non-answer.
|
I'd agree with much of your first sentence. However, the down-side is that when a guy like that is wrong, he can be _really_, _really_ wrong, and unable to see the other side. I think he'd have made a better President than SecDef. Perhaps better at "the vision thing" than at the implementation (or prone, perhaps, to trust the wrong people).
I'm actually finally reading through "Bush at War" now (its been a busy year), and Rumsfeld comes across very well so far. Very smart and thoughtful guy.
His excellent discussion of his effort to revisit all U.S. war plans and reevaluate and update them all, beginning with the underlying assumptions, makes me wonder how his shop could have so badly fucked up the post-war planning and implementation in Iraq. Its hard to keep your place on the Honor Roll when you get a D on the exam.
S_A_M
