He only served in the navy for four years. Then he transfered to the reserve where he retired. I know he has served many federal positions, but he's defintely not tailored for this job.

Part of the reason why our country fails to get anything accomplished, is because it is being ran by people who don't qualify for the position(s).

[Edited on October 12, 2006 at 7:41 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2006 7:37:29 PM

Well for one, he was SoD in the 70's under Ford

Then there's the fact that SoD's are supposed to be civilians in the truest sense. Most of them don't have any military experience at all.

10/12/2006 7:43:28 PM

so only career military men are cut out for SoD?

10/12/2006 9:36:57 PM

becuase there are unknown unknowables.

[Edited on October 12, 2006 at 10:09 PM. Reason : 6]

10/12/2006 10:08:53 PM

The goddamned liberals were jumping up and down like they had been scalded when President Bush named an experienced military man, General Michael Hayden, to head the CIA. Which is it? Do you gadflies want military experience or not? Un-fucking-believable!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050800311.html

10/13/2006 4:46:45 AM

Are you retarded?

One misinformed person asks a dumb question, and it's "OMG YOU LIBERALS!1"

10/13/2006 6:25:38 AM

Padowack, you busy reading Woodward's book?

Sounds like it.

10/13/2006 7:07:45 AM

^^ If only it were one person involved in this type of sophistry. OMG, I forgot: The liberals prefer to be called progressives and that the "retarded," as you put it, be referred to as mentally challenged. Sorry.

10/13/2006 10:11:24 AM

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 10:14 AM. Reason : Computer ]

10/13/2006 10:13:20 AM

Quote :

"The goddamned liberals were jumping up and down like they had been scalded when President Bush named an experienced military man, General Michael Hayden, to head the CIA. Which is it? Do you gadflies want military experience or not? Un-fucking-believable!"

Were not talking about the CIA dipshit, were talking about the military.

10/13/2006 10:16:41 AM

^ You just revealed your ignorance, dumbass. The military doesn't do shit without intelligence. Have you ever even heard of the DIA (one of the organization's values: "Leadership at all levels within Defense Intelligence and the Intelligence Community [emphasis added]")? Have you heard of the NSA (a quotation from a page on the organization's Web site concerning its heritage: "NSA continued to support policymakers and combatant commanders in conflicts around the globe with real-time actionable intelligence and state-of-the-art secure communications")? And several other organizations including the CIA are involved in intelligence gathering and work very closely with and sometimes as a part of the military. Shut up.

10/13/2006 10:32:06 AM

You didn't really explain how I showed my ignorance. I'll let you try again, then maybe I'll point out how your comparison between CIA and SoD in this thread is flawed.

10/13/2006 10:58:24 AM

other than Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, everyone Bush has appointed has been a n00b

10/13/2006 11:04:59 AM

Quote :

"One misinformed person asks a dumb question, and it's "OMG YOU LIBERALS!1""

Me asking how someone got a job, that is obviously not qualified for it, is a dumb question? Why should we put someone in charge of the entire military who has limited experience? Its a very dumb call. Noone said anything about this in the begining until the Iraq war turned into a shithole. Now you've had multiple "experienced" military generals calling for this guy's head.

If you're gonna put someone in that fucking position, atleast let them have more experience.

Quote :

"so only career military men are cut out for SoD?"

ummmm, I think that would be a very logical thing to do. wouldn't ya think? It feels like one of those Holiday inn commercials, except this is real life. People have died left and right due to his stubborness, inexperience, and simply not knowing.

If you're gonna have an experienced military man head the cia, have one head the fucking SoD. You fuckin stupid redneck moron.^^^

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 11:11 AM. Reason : .]

10/13/2006 11:10:52 AM

^^ I'm comparing apparent liberal outrage for a high-level member of the Bush administration not having military experience to liberal outrage for a high-level member of the Bush administration having military experience.

10/13/2006 11:11:26 AM

Don't get off in the comparisons here. Stay on topic.

10/13/2006 11:14:01 AM

Quote :

"You just revealed your ignorance, dumbass. The military doesn't do shit without intelligence. Have you ever even heard of the DIA (one of the organization's values: "Leadership at all levels within Defense Intelligence and the Intelligence Community [emphasis added]")? Have you heard of the NSA (a quotation from a page on the organization's Web site concerning its heritage: "NSA continued to support policymakers and combatant commanders in conflicts around the globe with real-time actionable intelligence and state-of-the-art secure communications")? And several other organizations including the CIA are involved in intelligence gathering and work very closely with and sometimes as a part of the military. Shut up."

Except that the two examples that you cite (DIA and NSA) are actually components under the umbrella of DOD. CIA is not, and while CIA Officers and SAD teams routinely work alongside military units, they would vehemently deny being a 'part of the military'.

Quote :

"If you're gonna put someone in that fucking position, atleast let them have more experience."

I think that you missed the part where he was the Secretary of Defense under the Ford Administration. I doubt that you can find better experience for being SecDef than previously holding the same position. He may not have as much active duty military experience as you would like, but he is far from unqualified to do his job.

10/13/2006 11:37:08 AM

Traditionally, you don't need a career military man to handle the defense department. Someone with some background of the system, whether prior service or working for the civilian defense bureaucracy is sufficient enough in terms of experience.

Back in 2001, I believe that Donald Rumsfeld on paper looked good for the position of Secretary of Defense. However, I think the question to be asked isn't why Donald Rumsfeld was selected in the first place, but why he's still in the position. Even assuming that he wasn't directly responsible, there have been more than enough scandals with the DoD over the last six years that would have merited his resignation. Heck, I think he even offered his resignation after Abu Ghraib, but if memory serves me correctly, the President turned it down.

10/13/2006 11:49:35 AM

Actually, with Rumsfield you get exactly what you see. The man doesn't harbor any deceits. He's a visible badass, won't hesitate to pull the trigger, and chew the hell out of the pentagon. He's not really a bad fit. I think he's taken heat for this entire debacle when really the cabinet as a whole needs to have taken heat. For instance, Gen, Colin Powell was part of the planning for the war in Iraq.

10/13/2006 2:49:34 PM

Quote :

""so only career military men are cut out for SoD?" ummmm, I think that would be a very logical thing to do."

Unless you knew what the Sec. of Defense actually does.


President (civilian)

V

Secretary of Defense (civilian)

V

Joint Chiefs of Staff (military)

10/13/2006 3:12:10 PM

okay, you guys win. I thought I had a case for a sec. I concede.

10/13/2006 4:50:05 PM

i went through the list of 20th century SoDs on wikipedia and it looks like the big trend is men who served in the active military for 2 to 4 years after college and then went on to success in business/politics.

the big exception is wwii vets because such a huge slice of the population served in that conflict.

10/13/2006 6:36:13 PM

To SkiSalomon: I meant "part of" in the operational sense--at the unit level--not in the organizational sense. And I think most people got my meaning. Moreover, liberals and some others are screaming about bad intelligence leading up to military operations in Iraq. At this critical time for our nation, wouldn't we want a four-star general, someone with the in-depth knowledge of both worlds, at the helm of the CIA?

Concerning Rumsfeld and other high-level officials of any administration, military service helps one to have a little better understanding of what that service entails and the hierarchical structure of the military. Beyond that, it is just something to be proud of, and it should not be a requirement for the position of secretary of defense or director of the CIA. If I were in charge of the selection process for the positions at issue, I would simply list military service as a preference.

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 8:26 PM. Reason : ,]

10/13/2006 8:25:28 PM

^ Sure, at the unit level, Agency officers are probably attached to special operations units on occasion, although not as often as one may think. The CIA has its own paramilitary structure, the Special Activities Division, and tend to work outside of the military. Particularly in the invasion of afghanistan, CIA teams led the way with ODA 555 and 574 among others working in conjunction. Seperate missions in a lot of cases, working toward the same overall goal.

Quote :

"At this critical time for our nation, wouldn't we want a four-star general, someone with the in-depth knowledge of both worlds, at the helm of the CIA?"

First, I dont think that it takes a four-star general to run the CIA. In this case, I dont think that Hayden is a bad pick for the DCI and in fact, there have been many military men to serve as DCI. However, simply being from the military does not mean that they necessarily have in depth knowledge of both worlds. And I think that you went on to answer your own question in the later part of your post:

Quote :

"military service helps one to have a little better understanding of what that service entails and the hierarchical structure of the military. Beyond that, it is just something to be proud of, and it should not be a requirement for the position of secretary of defense or director of the CIA."

So no, I dont think that SecDefs or DCIs necessarily should have requisite experience as a general officer in our military

10/15/2006 10:18:18 AM

hooksaw is blowing all of you out of the water. liberals: get your terrible arguments organized before you try this again. as seen w/ the cia head and this argument, liberals dont have an organized ideology, aside from 1) class war (we gotta raise taxes to help the poor!) and 2) the opposite of solid conservative ideology.

10/15/2006 3:57:25 PM

Wait...

The argument against Rumsfeld is incomplete?

Let me complete it for you:


1. Accountibility

fin

10/15/2006 4:19:08 PM

what is wrong about the argument placed forth by hooksaw?

10/15/2006 4:19:38 PM

What argument?

You can't take an individual's stupidty, paint a whole group with it (your specialty, so perhaps this is what you fail to see hooksaw's lack of argument), and then expect that group to defend themselves against it.


1. The CIA chief and SoD are two very different positions

2. The "liberal" arguments against Rumsfeld and Hayden are very, very different

10/15/2006 4:36:01 PM

Concerning "liberal arguments," yes, they have a plan--more waffles:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/01/AR2006030102193.html

Oh, I forgot, ". . .than a house of pancakes!"

10/16/2006 5:18:19 AM

^care to post a 7 month old article about democrats struggling to come up with a full agenda anywhere else?

10/16/2006 12:39:05 PM

so this article is posted in at least 3 threads now. AWESOME. tha makes it more valid and not a 7 month old op-ed piece

10/16/2006 12:45:20 PM

I'm thinking about starting a thread. And for the ill-informed, "plans" should be made in advance.

10/17/2006 1:35:29 AM