Town Square

Post a New Topic

Don Rumsfeld is a fellow at the Hoover Institution

Original post made by Dr. Ferragamo on Mar 28, 2008


Another major figure of the Iraq War, former U.S. Central Command chief John Abizaid, has also found a home at Hoover. Past Hoover fellows, including notably Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who were tagged to serve in the Bush administration, include Stephen Krasner at the State Department and John B. Taylor at the Treasury Department. The think tank's ties with the Reagan administration were similarly strong. Reagan advisers associated with Hoover included Secretary of State George Shultz, Attorney General Edwin Meese, and National Security Adviser Richard Allen. Margaret Thatcher and Newt Gingrich have also been Hoover fellows.

Hoover became an ideas factory for George W. Bush before he was elected president. In the summer of 1999, Bush, then the governor of Texas and in the early stages of his presidential campaign, paid his first visit to California as a candidate. At the time, Bush's campaign was at pains to portray him as a moderate, "compassionate" conservative who would soften the hard edges of Republican economic and social policy. But a few analysts looked beyond the rhetoric to take a closer look at the advisers who provided the intellectual foundation of his campaign, and in the process saw signs that Bush was not the post-ideological moderate he appeared to be. The Christian Science Monitor noted that one of the biggest tipoffs was Bush's close association with the Hoover Institution, which had already "emerged as the early core of Mr. Bush's brain trust."

More about the Hoover Institution here: Web Link

Comments (32)

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 28, 2008 at 6:33 pm

The Hoover Inst. is a wonderful place, becasue it is a bastion against socialist thought, thus a bastion against mass murder. The larger Stanford campus, espeically its faculty, could and should learn from the Hoover scholars.

The campaign against Rumsfeld, at Stanford, failed, miserably. He and Hoover have prevailed.


Posted by Tom, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 28, 2008 at 8:36 pm

One thing about Stanford University. It is OK to "think". Just think its way - to the left. We put up with Bruce Franklin for years. Hoover Institute is an institution that the area is proud of, and anyone who is asked to join its ranks should be welcomed whether or not you, Dr.
"Ferragamo". agree with him or her. There ARE conservative thinkers in the Palo Alto-Stanford area., and we are staying whether YOU like it or not.


Posted by Dr. Ferragamo, a resident of Stanford
on Mar 29, 2008 at 9:36 am


Do you think it would be unfair if we force the folks who were eager to murder millions of Iraqis to pay for it?


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 29, 2008 at 11:52 am

"Do you think it would be unfair if we force the folks who were eager to murder millions of Iraqis to pay for it?"

Who would they be? "Millions"? "Murder"? Saddam and his sons have already paid what they can pay, considering their present situation. I am confused. Please explain.


Posted by Dr. Ferragamo, a resident of Stanford
on Mar 29, 2008 at 11:57 am


In 1998 Madeleine Albright herself admitted 500,000 Iraqi children had perished as a result of UN sanctions.

And that was just sanctions!

We've probably butchered upwards of 6 million Iraqis.

It's a true holocaust.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 29, 2008 at 12:28 pm

The UN sanctions were put on Saddam, for his bad deeds. All he had to do was to comply with the will of UN. He refused. He and his boys built palaces, while his own people suffered. He is to blame, not the UN or U.S. GWB decided to put an end to him. That was a very moral decision.

Your 6 million figure is delusional. Not even the Lancet comes close to that one. "Butchered"? Our bomgs and shells have indeed butchered a few tens of thousands, however, the real butcherey is at the hands of the jihadists and militias.

Are you really a "Dr."?


Posted by Torturers R US, a resident of another community
on Mar 29, 2008 at 12:44 pm

I agree with McCain on Rumsfeld. He was the worst Sec of Defense ever. Totally screwed up the fight with Al Qaeda in Afganistan by playing office politics rather than support the CIA. Refused to go after Bin Laden in Tora Bora. Total screwup after the fall of Saddam's regime which lead to the insurgency. The Worst. McNamara isn't even a close second.


Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 29, 2008 at 1:23 pm

When the CIA first sent operatives to Afganistan, after 9/11, Rumsfeld was upset that the CIA had been given the lead, so he held back supply lines to the CIA for a MONTH, until he was able to wrangle the lead position on controlling what went on there. Rumsfeld, is, I'm convinced, as close to a sociopath as any senior government official has ever been. Stanford is not defending anything (like free speech); it's kowtowing to certain wealthy GOP donors - shameful.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Shame,

I suppose you have some reliable inside information to prove your assertions that Rumsfeld was actively trying undermine the CIA in Afghanistan, following 9-11? If so, show your cards.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 29, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Compare the Rumsfeld invasion with previous ones. The day of cannon fodder and human wave attacks is, thank God, over. The mistake of turning Iraq over to the State Department was not Rumsfeld's. Don, even if you were just a sailor, this elderly Infantryman will pour one for you any time. Bring your buddy Bolton. A pity you are not on the ticket. And pay no attention to my Feather Merchant neighbors. They have been disconnected since I have lived here.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 29, 2008 at 3:50 pm

ummm...to those who think the UN Sanctions were what killed the Iraqi kids ( by Saddam's words...5,000/month under the age of 5)..

remember, the Kurds in Iraq got LESS per person than Saddam got for the rest Iraq, and the KURDS standard of living, caloric intake, infrastructure, and medical care improved.

The difference is that the UN agreed, foolishly, to let SADDAM get the money and do with it as he wished, which meant he stole it for himself and the military.

THAT is why kids starved under Saddam, and not the Kurds.

By the way, it was only Shia kids who were starved..not Sunni kids.




Posted by Torturers R US, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 29, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Rumsfeld never turned the occupation over to the State Department. As the other nutcase always says, "Show us your cards!"


Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 29, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Gary,

Web Link

then go to PBS and watch the truth
Web Link

I hope you're not supporting Rumsfeld's sociopathy and fascism. Anyone who still supports what Bush has done is suspect himself.




Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2008 at 8:14 am

Torchy, what part of "The mistake of turning Iraq over to the State Department was not Rumsfeld's" don't you understand? It was a grievous error by Bush. I have faulted Rumsfeld for having been chevied into up-armoring Hummers instead of prohibiting their use in tactical situations.
A pity Stanford lacks mastery of our native tongue, evidenced by the programmed use of pejorative terms with no context. One would expect such an institute to have grown beyong elementary playground "so's yer old man" taunts.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2008 at 9:03 am

To Stanford's Shame:

you said "Anyone who still supports what Bush has done is suspect himself.


Anyone who is opposed to

1) the liberation of the Iraqi women from government sponsored rape, torture and killing rooms

2) the granting of women's right to vote for the first time in Muslim country Middle East history

3) the improvement in health care and education for all Iraqis

4) the arrest of the slaughter of 70,000 Iraqis, adults and children, per year

all thanks to "Bush's ( and my) war"

is suspect.


I believe in the fruits of this labor...


Posted by Torturers R US, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2008 at 11:24 am

There's no substance to your belief that the occupation was controlled by State. Just because FOX News and Rush say something doesn't make it true.

If the Bush administration is supposed to have corporate efficiency in invading "inconvenient" countries, at least they could show at little more competency in addressing the real threats, like Al Qaeda and religious terrorists. Rumsfeld was an incompetent SecDef and he lost the trust of his own troops.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2008 at 8:15 pm

So Kuwait never happened?


Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 30, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Looks like Mr. wallis didn't watch the movie.

Perspective, All the improvements you mention could have been made in a more efficient way. How can you support this Bush nightmare? It's as if you see in only black and white.


Posted by TorturersRUs, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Wrong Bush Wally. We were supposed to "liberate" Iraq this time, not Kuwait, and not destroy Iraq. Rumsfeld's tactics deposed Saddam's regime but destroyed the country. There isn't a credible government left now. Just because there was an election doesn't mean there is a government or a political solution.





Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 31, 2008 at 10:46 am

Take a look at post WWII pictures of Germany and Japan to see what a destroyed country looks like. The civilian population and the infrastructure and the oil fields were largely spared in Iraq.
Define credible government.
As for "All the improvements you mention could have been made in a more efficient way." none were likely
under Saddam, nor under his heirs apparent.
Why do libs love Saddam?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 31, 2008 at 10:47 am

Take a look at post WWII pictures of Germany and Japan to see what a destroyed country looks like. The civilian population and the infrastructure and the oil fields were largely spared in Iraq.
Define credible government.
As for "All the improvements you mention could have been made in a more efficient way." none were likely
under Saddam, nor under his heirs apparent.
Why do libs love Saddam?


Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 31, 2008 at 11:57 am

Mr. wallis, Look at the movie, and what tales are you telling us about infrastructure? People run infrastructure, but the de-Baathification of the bureaucracy and disbanding the Iraqi military was a stroke drooling cretin genious.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 31, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Shame,

I asked you for "some reliable inside information to prove your assertions that Rumsfeld was actively trying to undermine the CIA in Afghanistan, following 9-11"

You responsded with a hit peice from Michael Kirk. I will not waste two hours of my time watching his stuff. I have already wasted way too much time in my life watching white papers on conspiracies to kill JFK (including ice bullets and grassy knolls and bullets making right angle turns). However, I did read his online Q&A. He seems to contradict what you have asserted:

"The CIA told us they already had a plan in place to take down the Taliban when Sept. 11 happened. The president agreed and gave the CIA the lead in Afghanistan. The American military, believing that Afghanistan was the place superpowers go to die (influenced largely by the Soviet experience and perhaps their own memory of arming the Afghans) didn't even have a war plan for Afghanistan at the time of Sept. 11. The CIA contacts with the Northern Alliance and warlords were the basis for our quick victory against the Taliban in the fall of 2001."

Shame, please rpovide evidence for what you have asserted. Or is this just more lefty nonsense?


Posted by Torturers R US, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 31, 2008 at 1:20 pm

The fighting to take Baghdad was very short and a fair percentage of the Iraqi army melted into the population rather than fight back. A lot of the destruction to Iraq has come after the "Mission Accomplished" victory when the occupation utterly failed to keep the peace. Rumsfeld failed to win the peace and if he wasn't out of government, we would still be in "stay the course" mode. Rumsfeld even opposed the surge for 4 years.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 31, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Shame: So, if I understand you correctly, we failed to "keep the peace", which resulted in 1/5th the rate of deaths ( primirily by homicide bombers and shooters) that were "peacefully" done under Saddam? With an ever slowing rate with each passing year?

Give me your definition of failure to keep the peace over your definition of peace under Saddam any day.


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 31, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Others may not appreciate a war policy that reduces troop casualties to a level close to training accident rate, but I do. If deBathification aand disbanding were disasterous policies, does that mean keeping Saddam's army and party in power would have avoided any problems?


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2008 at 7:12 am

Walter, these are people who have not been taught history...Can you please tell them which WW2 military training death rate you are referring to?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2008 at 9:48 am

While there were a great many training deaths, I believe the classic one was the hushed up invasion practice. My own service started in '47, so I benefitted from some of the lessons and managed to keep trainees under my guidance alive. Since troops back then were a renewable resource, and since everyone understood warfare was a hazardous occupation, there was little angst about it. There were also a great many deaths in defense plants.


Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 1, 2008 at 10:02 am

Gary, Oh, you're too lazy to do the research that answers your question? I call that selective amnesia.

- - Walter, Perspective, nobody is arguing that Saddam's undoing wasn't just desserts; what they're arguing is that it cost way more lives and treasure than it should have, and this was was ill-advised, ill-timed, and has been ill-fought - all to satisfy Rumsfeld's and Bush gross incompetence.

Stanford should be ashamed of itself, to let a petty bureaucrat who let his ego get in the way of battle efficiency be honored in the way that Stanford is honoring him. Rumsfeld is a blight on Stanford's otherwise fine reputation.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2008 at 10:03 am

Hey Wingnuts! This thread is about Don Rumsfeld.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 1, 2008 at 11:36 am

Shame,

I just don't want to waste time. You claim to have done the homework, so just lay an anwwer on me. You made the assertion, so back it up. Or is Stanford such a fine insitution that it does not require messy stuff, like evidence?


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

The Perspective above was not me.

As for "cost way more lives than it should have"...I figure any reduction in lost lives is better than it was.

I never let perfect hindsight get in the way of great attempts..

For the perspective with a captial P above..Rumsfeld is often credited with being the architect of Iraq, so it is fitting to discuss Iraq in a thread about Rumsfeld...or did you miss that connection somewhere?

Much like it is appropriate to discuss WW2 when discussing Roosevelt.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Services, Dining and Shopping Downtown in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 16 comments | 2,253 views

Handmade truffle shop now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 1,998 views

It's the End of the World as We Know It: "Snowpiercer"
By Anita Felicelli | 1 comment | 1,503 views

Why is doing nothing so difficult?
By Sally Torbey | 7 comments | 975 views

Call it a novel: Dirty Love by Andre Dubus III
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 166 views