Rumsfeld calls Obama’s Syria strategy ‘mindless’
Former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he’s confounded by how the Obama administration has gone about explaining why a strike is in the USA’s national interest.
“There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation,” Rumsfeld, secretary of Defense when the U.S. attacked Iraq in 2003, said Wednesday evening on the Fox Business Network.
The most important issues in the region, Rumsfeld said, are “Iran’s nuclear program and the relationship between Iran and Syria — the (Bashar) Assad regime — with respect to funding terrorists that go around killing innocent men, women and children, including Americans.”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
saveenergy on 65 Years Of Progress! Jeff L. on Analyzing The Western Water Cr… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Approaching 100% I… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Set Another Spring… gelcarrion0t on New Visitech Features saveenergy on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast gelcarrion0t on Seventeen Years Of Fun Barbara Stockwell on Nuclear Safety In The US
My guess is that he’ll shoot a few tomahawks and hit some camels in the butt. (at $1.5 mill each!)
This is the military equivalent of his voting present on many important issues when he was a Senator.
Donald Rumsfeld is not aware of how many unknown unknowns are known to being ignored currently.
Send in Joe Biden with a shotgun
Mindless? Rumsfeld is once again far too generous and supportive.
Kinda like calling AGW a clear-and-present danger, without actually defining what that means. Saying bombing Syria is in our national security interest doesn’t make it so. Why won’t the media ask Obama the tough questions? Journalistic malpractice may result in lots of deaths, possibly WWIII.
While O’Bummer is getting his rocks off attacking Syria, Iran will be attacking Israel. That will give either Barry and/or his Israeli counterpart an excuse for taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities. If Barry is capable of thinking that far ahead, that’s probably his ‘brilliant’ strategy. World War Three, World War Shmee.
Sounds like Obama can get Iran to execute his plan to take Israel out.
Rumsfeld calling someone else mindless.
Now that’s irony.
So how is Obama’s unilateral action against Syria in our national security interest?
What is the end game?
What is the best possible scenario?
What will Obama do if Iran responds by attacking Israel either directly or using Hezbollah in Lebanon?
Coalition partners for 1st Iraq war (Bush41): 38 + Congressional approval
2nd Iraq war (Bush41): 30 + Congressional approval
Syria: 3, if you count the U.S., U.K. (wavering), and France (no guarantee); no COngressional vote or calling of special session by Obama
Obama isn’t behaving by his own standards – to only take military action with a broad international consensus and approval from the Congress. Remember Biden calling for Bush43’s impeachment, and Obama calling Bush’s bombing of Iran (which never happened – strawman attack) unconstitutional?