Anti-Rumsfeld petition tops 3,200 signatures Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Sep 24, 2007 at 3:56 pm
The petition being circulated in the Stanford University community protesting the one-year appointment of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to the Hoover Institution as a "distinguished visiting fellow" has reached 3,278 signatures, as of today.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, September 24, 2007, 3:47 PM
Posted by Gimmie a break!, a resident of the The Greenhouse neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2007 at 3:56 pm
John Raisian? Gimmie a break!
There is NO way that that appointment would have happened without the tacit approval of John Hennessy, Stanford's current President. Hennessy is a good man, and a very smart guy; this all makes me wonder how he let such a dumb thing happen.
My prediction: Rumsfeld will be gone, as incoming Stanford students will easily double to triple the numbers on that petition.
So, the second private conversation on this netter, between Raisan and Hennessy, will have the latter saying, "do what you have to do, but get Rumsfeld GONE!"
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2007 at 4:27 pm
"I would love to debate him."
Well, let the debate happen! Have it on camera, just the two of them, with no audience to play to. I predict that Zimbardo will be blown out of the intellectual waters. Zimbardo is not used to hard edged, in-your-face debate. He is way too soft, because he is used to a soft, left-wing, intellectual environment at Stanford.
BTW, given that the petition is for all possible Stanford related individuals (students, staff and alumni), how many signatures would be needed to, say, equal 10% of such qualified potential signatures?
If you're a member of the Stanford Community, I would urge you to sign it. Let's keep our campus clean of riff-raff that would otherwise challenge the credibility of intellectual freedom really means, instaed of using the moral courage of intellectual freedom and expression as a lever to disgrace our tradition, and those who fought for our freedom.
Donald Rumsfeld should not be permitted to sully our hallowed halls.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2007 at 5:52 pm
"sully our hallowed halls"
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Stanford has never been about hallowed anything. It is a political place, just like all major U.S. universities. So be it, but please do not act like a virgin in a red light district.
Rumsfeld will bring a little sanity to the place. Signatures on a petition are cheap. Let's see Zimbardo or Bernstein up against Rumsfeld, face-to-face, with no cheering audience to play to. It would be a wipe out in favor of Rumsfeld.
Posted by Free Speach Advocate, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2007 at 5:10 am
Wow!! and I thought I had immigrated to a land which honored "free speach"!!!!
I don't agree with the policies of the Bush Administration at all. But, if Columbia University in New York can give the Prime Minister of Iran a pulpit to speak in, the very least Stanford can do is give Rumsfeld the same privelege.
Posted by Observer, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2007 at 8:28 am
You've called for these debates in every thread you've posted in. Looks like Zimbardo's ready for it. Ball's in Rumsfeld's court now. Perhaps you could call your friend Rumsfeld and let him now the gauntlet has been thrown down? Have his scheduler get in touch with Zimbardo.
Show your commitment to free and open debate! Make it happen!
Posted by Who Cares What Stanford Thinks, a resident of another community, on Sep 25, 2007 at 11:34 am
Amazing .. over three thousand people killed on 9/11 by Islamofascists killers and not one peep out of the "Stanford community". But when one of the architects of the War on Terror is invited to share his views and work on campus .. Stanford "luminaries" who routinely are silent about autocratic governments that deny basic freedom to their people (like Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung) now call Rumsfeld "immoral"?
Given their general indifference to the evil in the world that never seems to offend them, who cares what the people who signed this petition think?
Posted by Gloria, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Who Cares What Stanford Thinks, Who reads you your bedtime stories? May I suggest that he/she find less scary tales? And perhaps he/she could include a nice little tale about how people who disagree can still respect each other and, maybe, even find some common ground.
Posted by alumnus, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2007 at 3:06 pm
No to Rumsfeld” Response
Something is wrong with our elite universities when the visit of the most influential actor in international terrorism in the world today (President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran) to Columbia receives less of a protest than the appointment of one of the most decorated public servants of this generation (former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) to the Hoover Institution.
While stressing the virtue of “disinterested enquiry,” the “No To Rumsfeld” petition leaves out Mr. Rumsfeld’s unparalleled record of service to his country in favor of baseless, ad hominem attacks. Born into modest means, Mr. Rumsfeld earned an ROTC scholarship to Princeton, where he graduated with honors; served in the Navy; was elected to the House of Representatives at 29, where he served four terms; has been a high-level advisor to every Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower; was the U.S. Ambassador to NATO; has been both the youngest and oldest Secretary of Defense; and has held distinguished fellowships at numerous universities and think tanks.
Any fair-minded person, regardless of his opinions of Mr. Rumsfeld’s policy decisions, cannot deny that this man’s life has been dedicated to patriotic service. More than almost any person alive, he has had a front-row seat to high-level policymaking in the post-war period.
Any person who knows Rumsfeld, regardless of his political opinions, would reject the implication of the petition that the man’s motivations are in any way evil. Unlike the vast majority of professors who signed the petition, Rumsfeld’s ideas and policies were taken out of the ivory tower and applied to the unpredictable, chaotic and brutal world during one of the most consequential periods in American history. Implications that Mr. Rumsfeld’s motivations for his policies were different from the goal of achieving greater security for our country and world simply contradict the entire history of his life. While heated debate and disagreement over his decisions should, of course, be welcomed, outright vilification of Mr. Rumsfeld’s motives betrays the academic spirit that the petition — and Stanford — espouses. Rumsfeld’s presence gives the Stanford community a fantastic opportunity to engage in intellectual discussion about the history that has unfolded before our eyes — the joke will be on us if we lose this opportunity due to juvenile, unjustified vilification.
Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2007 at 5:05 pm
John Hennessy is a better guy than that, or so I thought. His actions in these next few days will reveal a lot about his politics, his humanity, and his ability to discern freedom of speech from sanctioning the actions of a torturing sociopath who happened to "make it" all the way to to DoD.
Donald Rumsfeld is a sick man, period. How else would you describe a person who sent thousand sof people to their certain deaths, all the while refusing to tolerate opinions that might have changed that fact?
Calling people like Rumsfeld "Patriot" might have worked for a few months after 9/11 (when he and the rest of the Bush gang were busy plotting how to use American fear to their political and personal advantage), but not any more.
Americans need to start setting a new example. Sure, we'll allow anyone to speak, but we won't honor their speech with compliant nods just because certain individuals used their intelligence and skill to climb to the top and commit crimes against humanity, lie to their own people, and so on.
Rummy is a bad, bad dude, period. How could anyonen argue otherwise, based on his RESULTS, and the PROCESS he used in getting those results. Here's a guy who sanctioned (along with Bush and company) TORTURE, and the SUSPENSION of habeus corpus, for AMERICANS. To that, all I can say is "WOW!!" in amazement - and in further amazement wonder how this guy is receiving any accolades at all, and wonder why he hasn't been universally pounded for the inhumanity that he has visited on Americans, and many other folk.
I think it's interesting that our society pulls punches on political leaders, and other highly placed individuals (with an exception held out for luminaries in the entertainment world). We have to learn to admit we made mistakes by letting some of these people get too far into our polis, and influence us. That's a painful thing to realize, but we have to do it, or else we're liable to repeat the same mistakes, again.
Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2007 at 5:47 pm
to Calley Means: there is a difference betwen the outcomes of "patriotic service" from one individual to another.
Donald Rumsfeld LIED to send our young people to war - to die. Justify that under the phoney rubric of "patriotism", if you will.
Donald Rumsfeld KNOWINGLY kept sufficient troops from the battlefield in Iraq to save his superior's reputation.
I iwon't argue that Runsfeld thuoght he was a patriot, but let's look at the RESULTS of his patriotism.
We don't need Rumsfeld's (of George Bush) kind of patriotism here. If some other patsy university wants to disgrace the tradition of intellectual freedom, by using it as a cover to hire deep political failures, let them.
You show a blindness to history, and a deep sense of moral relativism by insisting that someone with the deeply disturbing record of deception - leading to the DEATH of felloe Americans - shuold have anything to do with Stanford.
Let Rummy publish his papers; you can learn from that - assuming he tells the truth, even there, whhich is highly doubtful
John Hennessy has a lot to answer for if he lets this go.
It's amazing how people like Rumsfeld and Kissinger, who both, under cover of democracy, committed the most horrible acts. That those acts were said to help Americans be "free" is reprehensible.
Intelligent people should know better, and act better.
Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Who will John Hennessy heed, his conscience, or the words of a few supporters. There is a good deal of naive realism going on here. Ask Phil Zimbardo what that "means" (pun intended)
We're waiting for John Hennessy to act with authority, showing that he knows the distinction between free speech and giving credence to a lier, and torturer who worked his way to the top of our government.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2007 at 5:56 pm
So will Calley Means be enlisting any time soon?
I'm always amazed when people interpret free speech to mean that Rumsfeld must speak and be paid to hang out at Stanford. All it means is that we're not going to jail him or have the government censor what he says.
A bunch of people don't want Rumsfeld at Stanford and are saying so. Some of you disagree. So be it, but the self-righteous freedom-of-speech business is sort of ridiculous.
Posted by jaded stanford alum, a resident of Mountain View, on Sep 25, 2007 at 9:40 pm
sounds like a Condy Rice put up, since she has made it well known she wants to return to "teach" at Stanford. But, then again, if he spends a year here, then maybe some data diggers will find out where he lives and camp on his front lawn, bringing body bags and coffins, cardboard body armour, expended shell casings. Just watching "The War" the last 3 nites shows that without full supply support you're sending our troops to certain death. So much for
lean and mean military strategies, Rummy. But, then, you were an academic, a Navy guy, never had to endure with the ground grunts.
Easy to shoot your mouth off when you have no real combat experience. All those "distinguished service" medals from countless Presidents, but no purple heart. Speaks volumes about your credibility. So go hide in the Hoover temple. Suits your legacy.
Posted by no stanford fan, a resident of Woodside, on Sep 25, 2007 at 9:55 pm
anyone who has been watching lately, Stanford has become a prestige whore. Just look at the "who's who" of admitted undergrads, Hoover fellows. The "best" of the Stanford brain trust haven't been able to turn around the Bush administration, so maybe it's time to evaluate Stanford for what it is, a Hoover institution. Time for a midwest, think Chicago, influence in Washington to right this listing ship of fools in D.C.?
Posted by Support your mini-essay, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2007 at 12:30 pm
M. Calley Means: Bravo. Extremely well said. You are an '08 of Stanford? If you have gone through 4 years of Stanford and can think like this, maybe Stanford has retained some of its ability to teach how to THINK, not knee-jerk parrot.
Posted by pati, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2007 at 2:42 pm
to CALLEY MEANS & FREE SPEECH: A few points. 1) trying to compare the President of Iran's speech at Columbia is not the same as Donald Rumsfield having an APPOINTMENT FOR 1 YEAR at Columbia !!!!!! While I despise what Ahmadinejad believes and am grateful that Columbia had him speak. I would be delighted to have Donald Rumsfield speak - just not be given an appointment. THIS IS NOT ABOUT FREE SPEECH !!! 2) The fact that Donald Rumsfield has been in "public service" does not (in and of itself) make him a patriot. Having the opportunities, and yes, the talent to land himself a varying positions of great power is ANYTHING BUT a sacrifice. I have great repect for the positions he has held but let's be real. Having the right connections is the single most important ingredient.
Donald Rumsfield may have genuinely believed Iraq was a threat. I doubt it, but that's irrelevant. He sacked everyone in the military who told him he needed more troops, and told the troops to "make do" with inadequate body armour, he diverted everything on speculation about Irag and walked away from the known enemy in Afganistan. He has shown nothing but contempt for the Constitution. He rationalized torture - to the shame of every citizen.
By all means, let him speak - but not an appointment.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Could you please show me where Don Rumsfeld pushed the notion of going to war in Iraq, within the administration? He, like most DoD directors, was reluctant to go to war. He presented a list of problems to everyone in the administration that were pushing for war. He was right on some of the problems, wrong on others (goes with the territory). He DID go to war with the military that he had - what was he supposed to do, go to war with something he had not? Clinton and his gang did not leave him a military that could support 300,000 boots on the ground. Besides, if 300,000 Americans were on the ground, there would have been about two times the number of targets.
Some people keep saying that Rumsfeld lied. Please, if you can, provide an example.
Posted by Missing WMD's?, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Still looking? Even GWB couldn't find them when he flew to Bagdhad on that turkey junket. Seems that was the rallying cry for invading Iraq. Don't remember Rummy ever denying their existence, put poor Colin Powell up to selling the U.N. on that preposterous notion.
Saddam fired all his SCUD's at the Israelis in the last Persian Gulf skirmish. Couldn't find the cash to buy any more, ineptly tried some home grown versions, never panned out. Rebuilding Iraq sure was a windfall for Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. Build and destroy, destroy and build. Only the suits in Washington change.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2007 at 8:26 pm
"The poison gas attack on the Iraqi town of Halabja, which was defined as an act of genocide by Human Rights Watch, was the largest-scale chemical weapons (CW) attack against a civilian population in modern times."
Missing WMDs, no very much real and used. When Hans Blix completely blew the inspection for nuclear weapans in Iraq, following the first gulf war, only a fool would believe a UN inspection, thereafter. Bush, Blair, even the French believed that Saddam still had them. At a minimum he had the means and intentions to reconsitute. There was no logical reason to assume that he was clean. Colin Powell sure didn't think so, and he looked hard at the intel (both U.S. and foreign).
WMD was overplayed, I agree, however, what else would the U.S. go to the UN with. Human rights violations? Oil-for-food violations? Violations of UN sanctions? Come on...Hardly! The UN is a joke.
Nevertheless, WMD was a real concern. If Saddam had them, even a few of them, he could slip a few to Al Queda to attack the U.S. or Europe. Saddam would find that very satisfying, under the notion that the enemy of enemy is my friend.
Posted by Glad to be a Canadian, a resident of another community, on Sep 27, 2007 at 1:20 pm
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Can anyone explain how this is a freedom of speech issue?? The protest has to do with him receiving a distinguished fellow posting. To receive such a posting he should have done something distinguished. Has he?? People that are experts in terrorism are summarily dismissed by this administration, including Rumsfield. He approved techniques such as water boarding, using attack dogs in integration and secret prisons -- all of which he defended as legitimate integration techniques on the Whitehouse channel, bettr known as FOX news. Hey wait a minute maybe this guy is an expert in terrorism after all!!
To Gary, who gave the Iraqis the chemical weapons in the first place?? Secondly, the only reason the "UN is a joke" is that industrialized countries like the US, UK, France etc...use it for their own political gain.Gary if you want an education on what goes on behind the scenes at the UN, read "Shake Hands with the Devil" written by general Romeo Dallaire, who is now a fellow at Harvard.You'll see it is the powerbrokers, like the US and France, who drag their feet when it comes to international issues.
I know this probably doesn't belong in this thread, but what the heck. Over the last week I have been hearing about how Iran is interfering in the war in Iraq and how it sponsors terrorism etc...has anyone stopped to look at the US record. First we displace elected governments in Iran and Chile and replace them with dictators( but these are god dictators because they are US friendly) and then the CIA trains their police departments on the art of torture and brutality. When the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan, the US funnels weapons and CIA operatives to defeat the Soviets. Seems like supporting terrorism to me.I'm sorry the Taliban were freedom fighters back then. Just like when the US funded the Contras to overthrow the Sandinistas, that wasn't funding terrorism it was funding freedom fighters. The world doesn't hate the US because of its freedoms, its tired of its double standards and hypocrisy.
Last word, let Rummy stay at the Hoover Institute, maybe in few years people will realize that it is not prestigious think tank, rather an old boys club, where lame duck politician come to feed at the trough. Who knows maybe GW will be asked to teach an English class.
Posted by Glad to be a Canadian, a resident of another community, on Sep 27, 2007 at 2:02 pm
We Canadians like to use the combination of backbone and brains, unlike some who think backbone is a substitute for brains. FYI, Canada has no problem going to Afghanistan where the real war SHOULD be conducted. If intellects like GW and Rummy had done the right thing that area would now be secure, instead attacks in Afghanistan have increased and the war on terror (what a joke)is no closer to an end.
As far as backbone goes, since WWII, Canada has sent more peacekeepers overseas on UN missions than any other industrialized country. There were more Canadian soldiers than US soldiers (per capita) in WWI and WWII. Plus, in both World Wars, Canada had the BACKBONE to to take a stand and enter both wars years before the Americans did.Just because we don't support an idiotic expedition into Iraq doesn't mean we lack backbone.Why are we in Iraq anyways?? Oh yeah it was to get rid of WMDs, no thats not right... it was to overthrow a brutal dictator...no its bring democracy to iraq...no, it was to fight terrorism. Gee I wonder why Canada didn't go in?? Misinformed rhetoric, spoken like a true flag waving, draft dodging Republican.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I happen to have extended family in Canada (mostly Alberta). I was up there two months ago for a family reunion. I heard a lot of discussions, like you have provided. I happened to sit down for a beer with one of my cousins. It was quite revealing. He said, "Gary, we Canadians have an inferiority/fear complex when it comes to America. You will hear us sounding superior, but that is just a cover. Our military, a formerly pround national insitution, couldn't fights its way out of a wet paper beg - it is so low, now, that it can only wear blue UN helmets. We hide behind USA military might. We are ashamed of that. We don't have the national will to restructure ourselves into something meaninful, on the international stage. We just act superior, while we suck on the American tit."
He used, as an example of Canadian need for flaky superiority, Ben Johnson/Charile Francis. The need to provide track superiority ("world's fastest human") was so strong, that cheating was considered acceptable.
Posted by Glad to be a Canadian, a resident of another community, on Sep 27, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Gary heres a link to Wiki where you can read in detail about the Iran/Iraq conflict. It mentions the sale of weapons to Iraq from the US. I'm sorry I can't provide invoices or receipts, but I'll call the pentagon or CIA and see if they'll give me copies. You can do a google search for this topic and find countless articles from reputable sources, NY Times and Time magazine who ran article on this very issue about 5 years ago.
Posted by Glad to be a Canadian, a resident of another community, on Sep 27, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Your cousin's comments make sense, Alberta is the Texas of Canada, where bravado replaces common sense. Maybe your cousin should take some Canadian history classes.If he has an inferiority complex he is in the minorty. Canadians don't wave flags around, but they are just as patriotic as Americans. and Unlike the US, Canada has never invaded another country outside of wartime, that is a good thing.The reason why the Canadaians wear blue helmets and berets is that they have an international reputation for fairness. It is true that the Canadian military is smaller than in the past, but after the cold war, like other industrialized countries, the government scaled back its military spending.The size of the Canadian forces reflect the reality of todays world.Even the US could have a smaller armed forces if its politicians didn't run around the world creating chaos in far off places.
Ben Johnson?? Saying that Canadians considered his drug use acceptable is like saying that Americans condone drugs used by NFL,NBA and NBL. Canadians at that time and today consider it a black eye on Canadian sports and sportsmanship. Just like this GW administartion is an insult to anything civilized.
Posted by Michael S., a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Only a close-minded person would not consider Rumsfeld a great addition to the university. I was always taught that diversity ain't just about skin color. Blocking him is akin to some sort or bizarre reverse McCarthyism.
Posted by Glad to be a Canadian, a resident of another community, on Sep 27, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Gary heres another link showing evidence in US involvement in Iraq WMD development, although its from from a semi-reputable website UCLA. If you can't find evidence here then there is no convincing you.
I'm sure Gary that you are one those people who believe that there was no evidence against Reagan or Nikon either.
Michel S., closed minded, the guy refuses to answer questions in main stream media, consider himself and his cohorts above the law, ignores international treaties on human rights, national rules on wiretapping, bypasses the entire judicial system in the prosecution of so called war combatants. You have to be kidding me. If people were protesting because he had different political views than theirs, I'd be with you but face the facts, the Hoover Institue is already a right wing think tank. His political affiliation is not the point of contention, his inability to use sound judgment is.Its like asking Barry Bonds to chair a commission on steroid use in sports.
Posted by Pati, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Are you suggesting that Donald Rumsfield, as Secretary of Defense, knew nothing about the torture being conducted in Iraq and those secret prisons elsewhere ?? Or are you saying that water-boarding and all the rest of it simply isn't torture? Given that the military is, and has always been, absolutely in favor of the Geneva Conventions with respect to treatment of prisoners - how could Rumsfield NOT have been part of it. I fully realize the Bush administration keeps saying they don't torture. Changing the definition doesn't make it so, for any but those with have lost the ability to think for themselves. So, when Rumsfield said, repeatedly that "we don't condone torture" that was a lie. Those secret prisons simply could not have been set up without his authority.
There are other instances, but I'm just a soccer-mom - I'll have to go back a look them up.
I am sooooooooooo sick of the tired line of trying to blame everything on Clinton. The military was reduced because the cold war was over and there was no reason to build it. So then we have 9/11. Time to get ready for anything. That would be on Bush's watch. There was PLENTY of time to prepare the military, both in numbers and materiel(sp?) before we went into Iraq WHICH WAS NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT. We had a whole flock of weapons inspectors in country. Even with the belief that Saddam HAD a stash of weapons (which seemed like a good possiblity to me at the time) how was Saddam gonna launch a nuke with the country crawling with inspectors and every intellegence agency in the western world monitoring. So you take another month, you sort out your northern approach BEFORE you attack. You prepare your military.
Hubris, incompetence, indifference to the soldier on the ground.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2007 at 4:55 pm
" If you can't find evidence here then there is no convincing you."
There is no convincing me, based on what the ATCC and Pasteur Institute provided to research labs all over the world in the early 1980s. It was a more relaxed period, and academics did not want to be interferred with. If this is the best you can do, then you have no basis for your charge that the U.S. gave WMD to Saddam.
If you read your own article carefully, you will see that most chemicals, eventually used by Saddam for WMD, were provided by Europe.
It is a remote possibility that the Soviet Union provided Saddam with WMD, since the USSR provided many weapons to Iraq, but that has not been established. It is more likely that Saddam made his own weapons, using some raw dual-use materials from the U.S. and Europe.
I will state, again: The U.S. did NOT provide chemical or biological weapons to Saddam. You say they did, yet you offer no proof. I am sure that there are many Canadians, outside of Alberta, who agree with me on this point.
Posted by Peter, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Gary, here are links about the U.S. supplying chemical weapons to Iraq and Rumsfeld's advocacy of invading Iraq.
Ample information is available on the Internet if one would only steel oneself to face the true facts and bestir oneself to Google phrases like, "rumsfeld chemical weapons iraq" and "rumsfeld pushes iraq war," and read some of the citations therein rather than trying to bully other people. To get the neocon's long-range plans for extracting "our oil from under their sand," one might go to the horse's mouth, The Project for the New American Century, an endeavor that involves William Kristol, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the other usual suspects.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2007 at 7:36 pm
"Gary, Gary, don't be lazy. Check it out for yourself."
Peter, I have made many inquiries about this subject, yet I have found nothing that proves that WMD were provided to Saddam by the USA. Nothing. Kaput. Nadda. Please, Peter, do some real research, and provide some proof. Hint: You won't find any, but do some digging, anyway.
In fact, I will extend the invitation to all leftys that make this claim, to put you proof where your mouth is. Call it a challenge to your veractiy.
Posted by Pati, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Look - I am not a scholar or a historian. I'm a bit of a politcal junkie and tend to listen to the senate on CSPAN when I'm at home. Both Republican and Democratic Senators, in support of and against; acknowledge that the US has utilized torture. So have many, many military people. People far more knowlegeable and have access to much more information that me (and possibly you) have used that word - torture. Additionally, it seems that experts on both sides of the aisle agree that torture DOES NOT bring reliable information. If the US endorses somewhat less barbaric torture than chopping off heads it doesn't make what we do OK. And how can the UN or Human rights watch go into secret prisons if they don't know where they are?? Why does the United States of America need SECRET prisons?
Anyway, this all started with Rumsfield's appointment to stanford. I wish they hadn't done it because I'm not sure that most of the world knows what the Hoover institute really is. I don't understand how anyone can view Donald Rumsfield as a "great addition" to Stanford. At best he was horribly incompetent (try and find 50 republicans who believe the war was well mananged) and at worst immoral. And I resent being called closed minded because I have a different opinion.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2007 at 7:50 pm
"it seems that experts on both sides of the aisle agree that torture DOES NOT bring reliable information"
I don't know about torture, per se, but waterboarding is quite effective.
"Several accounts reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded while being interrogated by the CIA. According to the Bush Administration, Mohammed divulged information of tremendous value during his detention. He is said to have helped point the way to the capture of Hambali, the Indonesian terrorist responsible for the 2002 bombings of night clubs in Bali. He also, according to the Bush Administration, provided information on an Al Qaeda leader in England. On September 13, 2007 ABC News reported that a former intelligence officer stated that Mohammed had been waterboarded in the presence of a female CIA supervisor."
Seems the CIA itself doesn't think torture brings useful results: "Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress… KUBARK (a codeword for the CIA) is especially vulnerable to such tactics because the interrogation is conducted for the sake of information." – CIA Vietnam-era interrogation manual (from the American Progress article).
Open your eyes (and mind), Gary. You seem to be exercising an unwillingness to ingest new information.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2007 at 9:44 pm
"Gary, it seems that you didn't read the material at the two links I provided"
Peter, what two links? Did I miss them? Please be specific. I want to see proof that the USA provided WMD to Saddam. I am not looking for special interest opinions...just facts. Now, Peter, are you asserting that the two links that you are about to provide to me are PROOF of WMD transfer to Iraq by the USA?
Posted by litebug, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2007 at 12:59 am
If there is another anti-Dumsfeld petition for the non-Stanford citizens of Palo Alto I'd like to add my name to it. Too bad there isn't a registry for war criminals, the same as there is for sexual predators, so we could be warned when one moves into our community. I worry if property values will hold up having such an undesirable element in our area. I sure hope he sets up housekeeping in some neighboring town so I don't chance running into him in the grocery or hardware store. I don't want to be anywhere near people like him. NIMBY rules, where Rummy is concerned!
Posted by definition, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2007 at 10:51 am
You are right on.
Pati: please research what torture means in the Geneva convention, then find my any proof at all that we have done it. Waterboarding, humiliating, scaring..these are not torture..Torture is actually USING any of the items we SAY we are going to use, but thanks to the left everyone now knows we actually don't use.
Posted by litebug, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2007 at 11:30 am
I would be willing to bet that anyone being water-boarded would definitely consider it torture! It makes me ill to hear people debating the fine points of horrible inhumane treatments as to whether this one or that one is, or isn't, actually "torture". It is sick, perverted and amoral! Shame on the devils who are dancing on the head of this evil pin!
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2007 at 11:44 am
First off, shame on those who would prevent our intel people (CIA, especially) from using any streesful means, short of torute, to obtain valuable intel. Many lives have been saved, becasue we have done so in the past.
Since waterboarding clearly works (see my post to pati, above), and we all know that torture does not work, waterboarding cannot be torture.
Posted by litebug, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2007 at 1:02 pm
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] I question just how many lives have been saved, as opposed to lost, through efforts of the CIA, and how you would know such a thing. I doubt it is quantifiable because they work in secrecy. It is just a popular belief that goes unquestioned. The government tells you that is the case but how does anyone really know?
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
btw...the CIA was established by Nazi intelligence criminals whom we took to our bosom after WWII. Read up on Operation Paperclip. They brought with them their poisonous beliefs and methods. In my opinion, it is an evil organization that, since its inception, has done as much harm to this country's best interests as any I can think of, foreign or domestic. They have a track record of over-throwing legitimately elected governments, supporting some of the worst people on the planet and doing unspeakably foul deeds in the process, mostly to protect global business interests and to further American empire. I would be more than happy to see the CIA abolished.
I am 68+ years old and I long for the day when I can again be proud, instead of ashamed, of my country and its role, behavior and example in the world. Most of all I wish for a return to the rule of law (domestic and international) and restoration of our Constitution, which has been trashed beyond our enemies' wildest dreams and abilities, by greedy, craven, megalomaniacal politicians, supported by cowardly citizens who have allowed themselves to be easily and deliberately manipulated by fear, propaganda and mis-information. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Posted by Completely for our system, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Litebug....would you believe the same if a beloved person of yours was saved from being blown up because of waterboarding which revealed that there was a plan to blow up whereever he/she works?
or, a beloved person of yours in the military isn't ambushed, taken and truly tortured to death, because the plot was uncovered and prevented?
Do you honestly think anyone is going to have a change of heart, realize how awful it is to kill innocent people, and tell everyone in time to stop it simply because we ask them nicely to play well with others?
Posted by c'mon, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Litebug, if you are really 68 years old then you should be completely and fully aware how much better we are now, in terms of acceptable "methods", than we were ever before in history, including the 90s.
You would also know that we tolerate the least of any other country, period. You have noticed how strangely silent Europe has been on our supposed "torture"? Because their laws are more lax than ours, and theirs are still "meaner" than any place else in the world. In other words, think again about being ashamed of living in our country.
Posted by Peter, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Gary and bydefinition: According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture", "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." Here's the relevant link to see how civilized people view such methods.Web Link
Posted by my assessment as sister of military man, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I am completely not dissing McCain, but his definition is not the international definition as established by Geneva. I also completely disagree with his assessment that if we treat prisoners one way, then of course they will treat us the same. We don't behead and physically torture our prisoners, but that hasn't stopped anyone from doing it to us. So, publically airing the fact that we don't cause physical pain or harm ( not saying waterboarding is fun: anyone who has come close to death by drowning knows how awful it is)has resulted in us getting less information from the fear that we WILL, and I have been very disappointed in it.
Posted by litebug, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I know that ALL human beings are capable of both good and evil, and I am no exception. One can endlessly construct hypothetical situations to illustrate anything whatsoever. But there is a difference between what individuals do under conditions of extreme stress and duress and having such actions codified and sanctioned by law. Otherwise, murder would be legal.
I was born just as WWII was breaking out...the year Hitler marched into Poland, 1939. Unlike the people of today, we saw the war and the victims, both of the war itself and of death camps and slave labor. We saw the wounded soldiers and the flag-draped coffins. I saw it in the newsreels and in the magazines as far back as I can remember and it made an indelible impression. Since the Vietnam War, this is all kept from the American people. War is inseparable from atrocities, such as torture. But it was an aberration, not official policy. I am not so naive as to think the USA has ever been "pure". Certainly this country did awful things to some of its own citizens during WWII...just ask the Japanese Americans. Most people consider those things to have been wrong and a mistake and racist too, since German Americans weren't subjected to the same abuses, despite evidence against Germans and none against Japanese.
I have no idea how anyone can think "how much better we are now, in terms of acceptable "methods", than we were ever before in history, including the 90s". I suspect that this is a relatively young person with a short frame of reference. At least, that is the only explanation I can think of for such an astounding and, I believe, unfounded statement. There has been much outrage around the world for the way the USA is behaving, the use of torture being just one example. Maybe your news source just doesn't report it.
Don't put words in my mouth! I am NOT ashamed of living in this country and have never said that. This is as much my country as anyone else's, with the exception of Native Americans. What I am ashamed of is the POLICIES of the government and the BEHAVIOR and ATTITUDES of many of my fellow citizens!
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 29, 2007 at 1:04 pm
"...the CIA was established by Nazi intelligence criminals whom we took to our bosom after WWII."
Reference, please, litebug? If you are really 68 years old, I am sure you have had plenty of time to do some historical research.
It is my understanding that the CIA grew out of the OSS which, in turn, grew out of British intellegience during WWII. The key figures, in terms of OSS/CIA, were Bill Donovan and Bill Stephnson. Neither of these people were Nazis.
BTW, I am still waiting for Peter (or others) to prove that WMD were given to Saddam by the USA.
It is easy to make accusations, but they need to be backed up with facts.
Posted by goodness gracious, read some history!, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2007 at 8:26 am
I am amazed that anyone believes we were "kinder" in war in any time prior to now in history. If you wish, I will find you links of ACCEPTABLE METHODS of "interrogation" that we, the USA, routinely used prior to now, in the 2,000s.
Posted by litebug, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 2, 2007 at 1:58 am
re CIA/Nazi connections: search Operation Paperclip, Reinhard Gehlen and the Gehlen organization, the Dulles brothers (especially Allen, who is described as "Chief Architect of U.S.-Nazi business and spy networks". This should give you enough to get started.
For example, here is an excerpt on Allen Dulles from one site:
"...worked with brother John Foster Dulles, as lawyer and international finance specialist for Sullivan & Cromwell, a Wall Street law firm in New York (1927-1941). While there, he worked with top Nazi industrialists and played a pivotal role in promoting U.S.-Nazi corporate relations. Allen worked with Prescott Bush (grandfather of President George Walker Bush) and George Herbert Walker (Prescott's father-in-law) who ran Union Banking Corporation for the Nazis. Allen was legal counsel for Standard Oil and the Nazi's I. G. Farben, co-owned by the Rockefellers. (Other U.S. millionaires allied to the Nazis were: William Randolph Hearst Sr., Andrew Mellon, Irenee du Pont, Henry Ford and J.P. Morgan. Morgan, du Pont and others were even involved in a Fascist plot to overthrow the U.S. government in 1934.)"..."as OSS station chief in Berlin, Dulles negotiated the agreement with General Reinhard Gehlen to establish a Nazi spy network within the OSS (1945). "
This is just one site that I happened upon. There is a ton of information out there about CIA/NAZI links as well as links between prominent Americans and Nazis during WWII. This isn't new stuff, it's history.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 2, 2007 at 7:14 am
"During the 1930s Allen Dulles gained much experience in Germany. An early foe of Adolf Hitler, Dulles was transferred from Britain to Berne, Switzerland for the rest of World War II, and notably was heavily involved in the controversial and secret Operation Sunrise. He is featured in the classic Soviet TV series Seventeen Moments of Spring for his role in that operation. Dulles became the station chief in Berne, Switzerland, for the newly formed Office of Strategic Services (the precursor to the CIA), a logical one. Dulles supplied his government with much sensitive information about Nazi Germany.
Dulles worked on intelligence regarding German plans and activities. Dulles established wide contacts with German émigrés, resistance figures, and anti-Nazi intelligence officers (who linked him, through Hans Bernd Gisevius, to the tiny but daring opposition to Hitler in Germany itself). Although Washington barred Dulles from making firm commitments to the plotters of the 20 July 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler, the conspirators nonetheless gave him reports on developments in Germany, including sketchy but accurate warnings of plans for Hitler’s V-1 and V-2 missiles."
Posted by Hey, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 2, 2007 at 9:06 am
Can we get back to Rumsfeld and torture for a moment? "Goodness gracious" -- interesting nom de plume, since torture is neither -- just because torture has happened doesn't make it right. Just because someone has labeled it "acceptable behavior" doesn't make it so.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 2, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Why do you focus on Rumsfeld for the torture issue? Did you happen to see the "The War" (Ken Burns series) last night? One of our soldiers discussed the execution of prisioners. My own father (a WWII vet in combat) described the same type of thing to me. Did Ike approve, publicly? No. Did he know? Yep.
I fail to see what all the fuss is about, with respect to Rumsfeld. He offered to resign after Abu Ghraib, even though it was only humiliation, not torture. He didn't know about it, but it was under his watch. Real torture and extralegal executions happened under Ike's watch (don't forget FRD's watch), yet niether of them felt the slightest compuction to resign.
Can somebody please tell me ANYTHING that Rumsfeld did which was illegal? You can carp about wartime decisions made, all you want, but I want to know what puts Rumsfeld in the cross hairs of illegality. In this entire thread, I have not heard one SINGLE thing...just a bunch of left-wing propaganda.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2007 at 9:44 am
"Since many students and faculty are just arriving back on campus for the beginning of fall quarter classes this week, the petition effort may pick up steam. "It's going to explode," said Philip Zimbardo, professor emeritus of psychology and one of the organizers of the petition effort."
At the time of this published statement by Zimbardo (Sept. 25) the petition had more than 3400 signatures. Now, with the students back on campus, the petition has 3744 signatures, an increase of about 10%. Is this what Zimbardo means by an "explosion"? If so, I would question his competence in assessing the real world. Rumfeld would take him to the cleaners in a debate about the real world.
Posted by very sad ex-Democrat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:01 am
Well, Gary. Looks like the Left is doing it again. This time in an even scarier manner than in academics, which is supposed to be about learning, not indoctrination.
Now the Left leadership is 1) lying about what a private individual said ( fed by Media Watch, which was begun by H. Clinton) 2) and trying to stop him from speaking.
I am, of course, referring to the illustrious Democrat leadership like Reid trying to stamp out Rush Limbaugh.
The only good thing is that as the Left gets more and more threatened by truth, they reveal their propensity to squash free speech more and more, and thus reveal their colors for all to see.
So, you go Reid!
The only bad thing is that I am ashamed to be a former member of the party that does this. And it makes me sad to see the party of 'free speech" become ever more the party of propoganda and suppression. Next thing you know, Chavez will move here and become a Democrat hero.
Posted by Hey, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2007 at 10:01 am
Let's take a look at Rumsfeld's grasp of reality, in his own words:
Feb. 7, 2003:
RUMSFELD: “[The war in Iraq] could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Feb. 20 2003:
JIM LEHRER: “Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?"
RUMSFELD: "There is no question but that they would be welcomed.”
Mar. 30, 2003:
RUMSFELD: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
And then for good measure, to show that his grasp not only of reality but also of things that he himself has said.
August 3, 2006:
SEN. CLINTON: Well, Mr. Secretary, I know you would and I know you feel strongly about it, but there’s a track record here. This is not 2002, 2003, 2004-5, when you appeared before this committee and made many comments and presented, you know, many assurances that have frankly proven to be unfulfilled, and –
RUMSFELD: Senator, I don’t think that’s true. I have never painted a rosy picture. I have been very measured in my words, and you’d have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been excessively optimistic. I understand this is tough stuff.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Good to see that the Rumsfeld discussion has finally boiled down to how he conducted the war, rather than illegalities and torture and WMD handed over to Saddam, all of which are falacious.
OK, now to your points:
1. Saddam was overthrown within a few months. It was a true liberation for the Iraqi people. Saddam was eventually captured, tried, and killed. That was a liberation for the whole world.
2. The overthrow of Saddam was welcomed by the majority of the Iraqi people. Do you really question this? I think a legitimate criticism of Rumsfeld can be made that he did not separate the American occupation from the result of it (the overthrow of Saddam and his subsequent capture). However he was enough of a realist to understand that a quick exit, before stabilization, would have been much more disasterous than what we currently have.
3. I suppose you can fault him about WMD stockpiles in Iraq, but then you would need to include Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton. I don't think the final answer is is on that one yet. History will tell.
4. If you want to quote Hillary Clinton on this subject, I suggest you watch the following little clip :
Rumsfeld faced a very challenging situation, and he rose to the occasion. He led a military that overthrew a truly major tyrant and agent of terror. He did it with a relatively diminished army, and he did it with relatively small costs, as wars go. If and when Iraq stabilizes, and a representative government is firmly in place, he (and Bush, of course) will be considered visionaries.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2007 at 11:44 am
BTW, don't be taken in by the argument that the signers of the petition are for free speech at Stanford (or Hoover). They claim that if Rumsfeld wanted come make a speech, he would be welcomed, they just don't want him to get an appointment.
See the following link about "free speech" at Stanford.
Posted by Hey, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2007 at 1:51 pm
The point of my post was not to ignore Rumsfeld's role in torture. It was to address your comment that Rumsfeld is somehow in touch with reality.
RUMSFELD: “[The war in Iraq] could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Last I checked, U.S. troops are still there, still fighting.
JIM LEHRER: “Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?"
RUMSFELD: "There is no question but that they would be welcomed.”
More than 70% of Iraqis want the U.S. out in a year. 60% support attacks on troops. Web Link
RUMSFELD: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
So much for knowing where the WMDs are.
RUMSFELD: I have never painted a rosy picture. I have been very measured in my words, and you’d have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been excessively optimistic.
It actually wasn't very difficult to find such instances.
Posted by Observer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Bush came to Stanford to have a private meeting with Shultz behind closed doors. He did not come to Stanford to give an address or hold a town hall, for example. There was no censorship, especially since the meeting did happen at Shultz's house.
To reiterate, nobody blocked Bush from speaking publicly at Stanford, because he wasn't going to do so.
Likewise, people have said that they would not block Rumsfeld from speaking publicly at Stanford. The contention has been over whether he should be a "Distinguished Fellow".
And, lest you forget, the First Amendment also protects "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," which is what the people were doing.
Posted by you go, Gary!, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Well said, Gary.
Some of the problem with those arguing with you is in the fact that they do not understand the chilling effects of their intimidating actions on speech and the basic liberties guaranteed to all US citizens. Can you POSSIBLY imagine the reaction if a bunch of conservatives had even tried to block Kerry or Gore from speaking with or to anyone, or signed petitions demanding that Carter not be allowed to join an academic institution?
Some of it is a misunderstanding of what is meant by certain phrases and words. Like, for example, thinking that because we are still in Iraq somehow invalidates the fact that we toppled Saddam within weeks. The second does not nullify the first ie "mission accomplished" point.
Or, for example, believing that not finding "stockpiles" of WMD means there weren't any there..which completely denies the reality of meaning behind the traces of chemicals found in the river, ( where they were obviously dumped), sarin found in heads of missiles, chemicals NOT found in absentia via spotlessly wiped clean ( even of fingerprints) mobile chemical labs. No matter what anyone says about the meaning of all the clues pointing to Saddam et al having made good use of the 6 months warning we gave him to hide/export/dump most of the weapons, some people are going to believe there was nothing there because we didn't find "stockpiles". It is like denying someone used a gun when we find gunpowder residue on their hands, just because we can't find the gun.
We will never know how many lives were saved by us going in, but the important thing for me is that I have no doubt that many fewer people have died than would have died had Saddam still been in power,( based on historical fact) and the future of Iraq is much more hopeful than it was 6 years ago. I am very, very glad Saddam defied the UN to give us the chance to go in and depose him. I can't wait for the next brutal dicatator to give us the chance.
Posted by Well said, Gary, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Yes, Rumsfeld knows how to think in perspective, seeing the whole picture. He is a smart fellow, and no doubt understands that the resonse to this silly petition simply underscored how welcome he actually is.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 25, 2007 at 8:06 am
Hopefully there will be vigorous, public forums for this community to engage with one of the architects of the unraveling of our Republic. Golly, both sides will have to have their facts straight. Oh that those debates were on MSNBC specials for the lowing public to hear in the heartlands.
Posted by Rumsfeld did good stuff for good reasons, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 25, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Michael, we are all in agreement on desiring a public forum debate. It will be awesome! Can't wait! Hope it happens! The professor(s) who initiated the petition will agree to a debate with Rumsfeld about the same time that Al Gore agrees to a public debate on the causes of global warming...never.
Posted by Geronimo, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 30, 2007 at 3:11 pm
As always, this war has been an experiment. US citizens have rights under the constitution. Uniformed soldiers have rights if they are in the service of a signatory to the Geneva Convention. But, terrorists--disguised as civilians; representing no government, let alone a government that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention; with strategies completely opposite to the Convention’s requirement to spare civilian and non-combatant populations—such people don’t present any status that entitles them to a particular code of treatment. “Therefore, how do we treat them” has been a key question in the US response to terrorists and their initiatives. Rumsfeld was on the front lines of this. Comes with his job.
I think a debate between Rumsfeld and Zimbardo would be extremely significant. The perception of who had prevailed would probably split along the “OJ is guilty” lines, with students and left of center sympathizers favoring Zimbardo, and others more likely to see Rumsfeld as convincing.
Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 30, 2007 at 5:57 pm
"US citizens have rights under the constitution. "
Yeah, let's start with habeus corpus. That's "right, number ONE"
Rumsfeld had challenges, yes - so did a lot of other Secretary's of Defense. I can't remember when any one of them screwed up like Rumsfeld, or cynically watched soldiers die, like Rumsfeld. At least McNamara apologized.