"Donald Henry Rumsfeld (born July 9, 1932) is currently serving as the 21st United States Secretary of Defense, since January 20, 2001, under President George W. Bush."

This may be a bit pedantic, but to me this sentence seems to be saying that Mr. Rumsfeld is the 21st secrectary of defense since January 20, 2001. As in literally, there have been 20 other secretaries of defence since 1-20-2001. Does it strike anyone else that way? Moulding 18:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Having served under President Gerald Ford, he is both the youngest and oldest Secretary of Defense

What does this mean exactly? That he was the youngest when he started and that he's now the oldest? Am I the only one who had to re-read a few times to get it? Could this be made clearer..? MikeCapone 04:56, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think it has been clarified now. --Lowellian 03:38, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

The following text has been moved here pending souring information. Who is "reportedly"? Thank you.

"In 1976, Rumsfeld was responsible for transferring George H. W. Bush from envoy to China into the position of Director of the CIA. This was reportedly an attempt to scuttle Bush's presidential ambitions, and led to a certain animosity between the two."

Nobs 14:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pending souring information (heh, Freudian slip?)

In "(AB, 1954)", what does "AB" mean? -- Mpt 18:38, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It means that he graduated from Princeton University in 1954 with a degree as a Bachelor of Arts.

I've always heard a Bachelor of Arts degree referred to as a "BA". Am I missing something?

Some of the schools in that time period and before reversed the abbreviation-- if Princeton did that then AB is right and perhaps AB could be linked to an explanation that it's a bachelor's degree

It seems to me that "quotes" in a wikipedia article are supposed to be clever or witty things a person has said. Not these bizarre, damning, selected quotations with square brackets and so forth. They make the article look awkward and blatantly biased. user:J.J.

I wouldn't hesitate to include infamous quotes if they were really important (Chamberlain's "Peace in our time", for example). While I suspect the quotes currently selected for Rumsfeld are part of a subtle hatchet job, he did say them and they are of interest. I guess the counter-balance is to find some more positive/brilliant quotes. --M4-10 18:51, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No fan of Rumsfeld I, but I agree the quotes seem to be a (not so) subtle hatchet job rather than giving a good overall picture. I suspect there are quotes that could be better selected to be just as damning and more 'big picture'ish. Anyway, there are plenty of web pages of incriminating Rumsfeld quotes to link to.Gzuckier 15:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed on the obvious political shading inplied by the quotations. As argued on just about every other politically controversial talk page regarding quotations, the bulk of the quotations should be the domain of WikiQuote. C'mon - 16 entries? Many of the quotes are just plays on others not originally attributable to Rumsfeld (i.e. Squirrel/nut, criticism/inaction) and others have just way too much dis/mis-ambiguation inserted that it's plain to see that the context is nonexistant. I say pare it down to 3 or 4 unique, NPOV quotes that stand on their own, and are relevant to critical points in his career and history. My personal picks would be:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

"Our task, your task... is to try to connect the dots before something happens. People say, 'Well, where's the smoking gun?' Well, we don't want to see a smoking gun from a weapon of mass destruction."

and

"Beware when any idea is promoted primarily because it is 'bold, exciting, innovative, and new.' There are many ideas that are bold, exciting, innovative and new, but also foolish."

--[[User:Detriment|Detriment (T-M-C)]] 29 June 2005 04:30 (UTC)

No opinions regarding the overuse of quotations? I'll be paring them down in a few days if nobody can justify the section being left as-is. Detriment 08:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent page, well done to all concerned. --bodnotbod 13:54, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

This page is has a decidedly "anti-Rumsfeld" lean which should be obvious, even to the casual observer. --JR

Agreed. I would be in favor of killing the whole section. Having a list of quotations does not advance the article in any way. The current set of quotations is so selective and gives the article so much POV, it's ridiculous. -Vontafeijos 21:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes this section is an obvios NPOV which has been stated for 2 years according to the posts above. I vote delete for the quotes. also the Ray McGovern part should be moved to his own page becouse of its irrevelence to rumsfeld's life but obviosly a high point in Mr. Mcgoverns.--204.10.247.1 11:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)sorry forgot to sign in--MadDogCrog 11:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting the section now. -Vontafeijos 04:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumsfeld is a war criminal. How come the article doesn't mention this? --24.200.35.253 23:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's far too much detail about Abu Ghraib in here IMO. The stuff about what he knew, when, doesn't need to be here especially considering that it's all breaking news changing day by day anyway. Especially considering that there is almost no other info about his military campaigns. There wasn't even any mention that he ran the Iraq War at all until I just added it. Mdchachi|Talk 15:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes tend to be in that class of important things an encyclopedia should note. orthogonal 05:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

War crimes... Aww! Poor terrorists... Perl guy 19:58, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Justice is a blind woman holding a scale. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not a matter of "poor terrorists". The picture is much bigger than that. When ignoble emotions are allowed to take precedence over reason, one's actions become counter-productive. Kevin Baas 17:05, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)

Nobody has at all shown in a convincing manner that any war crimes took place. All we have is bunch of C/O forcing the prisoners to do frat house type hazing. For this several investigations have been started/concluded and the people held responsible are being punished. It's silly to blame Rummy for actions of some immature soldiers. Rummy himself has said that he dissaproved of of what took place at Abu Ghraib Klonimus 03:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"...the people held responsible are being punished." So war crimes did take place?? It is hard to imagine a single war since the phrase "war crimes" has been coined that war crimes have not occurred. However, that does not mean that Rumsfeld is a war criminal. Should Robert McNamara be considered a war criminal because the My Lai massacre happened on his watch? Those on the left have accused Bush and his administration of countless things. That does not make everything they have been accused of a controversy. Mentioning the Abu Ghraib incident in connection to Rumsfeld is important for this encyclopedia because of the media sensation it was. However, one organization that tries to find a court to accuse Rumsfeld as a war criminal doesn't make a significant controversy. Such an item would belong in a book long biography. Mentioning it here is an attempt by his detractors to legitimize their accusations, where no court will.

If Rumsfeld's policies directly led to war crimes then it would be fair to call him a war criminal. Rumsfeld authorized the harshest interrogation methods in American history. He pressured the pentagon brass to provide actionable intelligence by any means. However I would tend to say that an international tribunal would decide who is or isn't a war criminal. So at the most you could say Rumsfeld was behaving like a war criminal. Robert McNamara has himself said that he and others working with him behaved as war criminals during the firebombing of Japan and the war in Vietnam. Had the US lost the war, McNamara would have been on trial at Nuremburg. --Sirkeg 04:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On June 17, 2004, Rumsfeld admitted during a news conference that he had personally ordered two prisoners to be concealled from the International Committee of the Red Cross, one at Camp Cropper, at the instigation of CIA chief George Tenet - in apparent violation of the Geneva Convention.

Where is the evidence that this violated the Geneva Convention? Who was the prisoner and do we know if the Geneva Convention applied in his case, i.e., was he a legal combatant captured wearing the uniform of a signatory nation? Because if he wasn't, the Geneva Convention explicity states he would not be protected under the Geneva Convention. TimShell 08:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rumsfeld was widely criticized for the issue, that should be reported. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court ruled that the treatment of prisoners by the Bush administration violated US law. Get-back-world-respect 16:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tim, I think you are misinformed about what, according to the Geneva Conventions, constitutes a protected person:

"Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." -Part 1, Article 4, GCIV

Kevin Baas | talk 17:38, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Perhaps the 'Articles' section should provide some sort of disclaimer or notification that some of the articles linked to are POV. -Fogger 22:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it just me, but there is no mention of his military service, considered for both John Kerry, and President Bush there are extensive sections, shouldn't there be even a basic mention of Rumsfeld's Service in the US Navy? PPGMD

Mr Rumsfelds' Naval survice was "truncated". Therefore the original mention of "three Calander years of Navy service". It seems that he, Mr. Rumsfeld wast TAD on an U.S. Army Post. His personal actions toward a "femail U.S. Army person" was not appreciated. A complaint was made and Mr. Rumsfeld was then in "hac" for his personal actions to the young U.S.Army person. Should this complaint have gone to Courts Marshal, it was likely tolead to a conviction! So he used his influence and exited the Navy quietly through the side door. My source was a serving Army Person from that Army Base. I find no reason to believe that he lied or had anything to gain by such a disclosure. S// G.E. Anderson USMC Serial :1054898 FMF Korea 1950/51

Fine, if we are going to leave this unsubstantiated rumour on this Web site then I will comment upon it. Why isn't this comment signed? Who wrote this? Why don't you come out and state who you are? I will tell why you don't because you are lying. This is a flat out BS rumour and you are using Wikipedia to put it on the Internet. Step up and state who you are. Step and state what information that you have to back this up This is just simply misuse of the Wikipedia system to get a flat out bald-faced lie onto the Internet. Why hasn't any respectable newspapers know about this allegation. You are making an allegation without any support for the allegation that make your allegation BS and a lie. Until you provide some type of hard evidence then this is a lie. If it put into the article I will tear it immediately and if it is put back in then I will rip out the damn lie again.-----Keetoowah 02:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"You are making an allegation without any support for the allegation that make your allegation BS and a lie" *Cough* *cough* Rama 08:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey Rama Kerry is a loser and so is Gore.-----Keetoowah 14:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since you say "Kerry is a loser and so is Gore" without providing references, according to your initial statement, I assume you mean that they are great men, right ? But what does it have to do with the present topic ? Rama 14:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course the fact that Kerry is a loser and Gore is a loser has nothing to do with the current topic--just like your previous *Cough* *Cough* comment has nothing to do with current topic. If your comment did have something to do with the current topic then please explain what the heck that is and also Heinz Kerry is shrill pig.----Keetoowah 14:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saying that something which is not documented is false is a trivial logical fallacy. I am sorry not to have made my remark more explicit. I also should say that I find your insistance to compliment these Kerry people extremely odd, but since it would likely draw us further from the topic of the article, I won't ask you what you mean by that :) Somebody is a dirty pig to you too and cheers ! Rama 14:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah, you should probably stop assuming that anybody who tries to develop Wikipedia articles following the policy of neutral point of view and adds content that is critical of the current US administration is necessarily a supporter of Kerry or Gore. Not everybody is interested in petty US political squabbling. David.Monniaux 14:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, exccccuuussee MEEEE! Not! Look if you don't like it you don't have to read it. Also, the original point of this discussion was a rumour placed on this particular Talk page about Rumsfeld. So if you have anything useful to add to that discussion let's hear. What information do you have??? Do you feel better that you lectured me? I haven't changed one bit, but I was just wondering if it gave you some kind of feeling of power??? Look if you have anything, I mean anything at all constructive to add to the discussion about the rumour that started this thread then let's hear it.-----Keetoowah 14:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I looked at your background and I see that you are French. I'm so sorry for you. What's it like living in a former world power that is nothing but an impotent, second-rate country with an inferiority complex??? Wait don't tell me, from your comment I already know. It tees you off that no one and I mean no one pays any damn attention to you any more, so much so that you have to buy Saddam's oil off of the black market and invade third world countries like the Ivory Coast and then lecture Americans. But Americans don't care!!!! We just laugh at you and ignore you. Have A Frog Day!!!------Keetoowah 15:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mmmh. Perhaps you don't care, but you've just violated Wikipedia's policy against personnal attacks. Remember that repeat violations will get you blocked, or banned altogether.

I did NOT attack you personally. I did NOT violate any policy. That is a figment of your imagination. I attacked the country of France. Now, back to the article. You keep telling me to focus on the article but neither you, David.Monniaux or Rama have explained why the rumour, which is the subject of this tread, should be on the Rumsfeld Wikipedia page. As far as I can tell I have asked both of you for your input on that topic at least two times each and I haven't got a respond to that topic yet. I have received is a lecture from David.Monniaux explaining his personal opinion that I should not refer to "Kerry is a Loser" and from Rama about logical fallacy of my argument. But I haven't heard one comment from either one of you on the actual topic of discussion, the substance of the matter, which is the rumour listed above about Rumsfeld. Remember you really shouldn't lecture someone about sticking to the facts at hand unless you yourself actually comment on the facts at hand, which you haven't done yet. I will repeat. Unless there is some evidence provided for the Rumsfeld rumour then it will NOT go into the article and if anyone puts it in the article then I will rip it out.-----Keetoowah 17:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this kind of attitude is unlikely to make you more popular: your statement was very clearly a personal attack against David.Monniaux ("Wait a minute. I looked at your background and I see that you are French. I'm so sorry for you. (...)"). In any case, racist and xenophobic rants are not more allowed than personal attacks. David.Monniaux already suggested that you refrained from making heavy allusion to other political personalities in an obvious attempt to annoy hypothetical supporting users -- which was your only response after I pointed a serious weakness in your initial argumentation. As for it, the unconfirmed piece of information will be investigated by users which would be interested before it will go into the article or be forgotten. Because the community in its entirety wants it this way; not because somebody entitles himself defender of the article. Rama 17:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As for the rest, I will not answer to personal attacks that try to bring in irrelevant factors to the issue at hand. David.Monniaux 15:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was about to make a similar remark, but David beat me to it. Perhaps we might want to focus on the discussion and let othe factors aside. Rama 16:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For some reason I doubt that he could have gone through without being dug up during this nomination process. And there are many errors with your little type up, among them being unsigned, which is a big red flag in Wikipedia. PPGMD 15:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The two tables, located near the end of this article (Preceeded By) are quite confusing. Can someone who understands the intent improve the organisation? --Philopedia 30 June 2005 10:11 (UTC) Wow what a childish non-debate. You should probably grow-up and cut France a break, they gave you the STATUE OF LIBERTY, be nice or they might take it back!

If I'm not mistaken, Donald Rumsfeld was a professor at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School during the late 70s. If correct, this ought to be taken up under privat career. Can anyone confirm. --Philopedia 30 June 2005 10:11 (UTC)

His biography on defenselink.mil fails to mention that. If he dropped out of law school and doesn't have a PhD, it's safe to say that he was probably never a professor at Princeton.

Good catch, Philopedia!

In 1977, Mr. Rumsfeld left Washington, D.C., after some twenty years of public service and lectured at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs and at Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management prior to entering business. [1]

The School of International Affairs often has lecturers with backgrounds in public service, regardless of their academic credentials. --Dhartung | Talk 07:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the second from last quote in the list:

"...or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon" (a possible slip up refering to the September 11, 2001 attacks[2])"

...supposed to mean. Am I, the reader, to believe that this is some kind of evidence of the truth of a wacko conspiracy proving the government actually shot down the plane and that the statement wasn't a simple gaffe in the same vein as when people inadvertently refer to the "9-11 WTC 'bombing'"? The quote is obviously simply one of Rummy's many phrasing flubs and is entirely non-notable. I will remove if there is no counter argument. --Deglr6328 07:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Counter argument: Should be kept as evidence of his verbal incompetence.

That's hardly a relevant argument. It was a mistake.

And the word "possible" clearly shows it was the author's intent to troll

I did a little cleaning up and and added a "Controversy" section. Can't believe there wasn't one before. BTW, major kudos to whoever is maintaining this page. Palm_Dogg 04:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a registered independent, supported the Iraq War, and I am no fan of Rumsfeld. The Iraq War was controversial from the start, and Abu Ghraib is a sub-controversy of the same. Both deserve mention here, because Rumsfeld is a key figure in both. However, both deserve their own pages and details of Rumsfeld’s involvement and criticisms belong on those pages, specially sense no completely objective analysis is still possible.

One organization that tries to find a court to accuse Rumsfeld as a war criminal doesn't make a significant controversy. Such an item would belong in a book long biography. Mentioning it here is an attempt by his detractors to legitimize their accusations, where no court will. Its mere mention here is biased. It would be more appropriate to mention it an the Abu Ghraib page. User:IndependentThinker 00:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. BTW, I am a registered conservative, still support the Iraq War, and am a big fan of Rumsfeld. However, I'm also a NPOV nazi, so I may go overboard sometimes trying to present the other side. Palm_Dogg 01:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Rumsfield is not tried is because the USA under the bush adminstation refused to participate in the International Criminal Court unless it was granted immunity. No court is trying him because no court CAN try him. your logic is invalid more than just the typical fallacy of deriving premises from conclusions. Kevin Baas^talk 18:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well...that and the fact that the Iraq War 2003 was LEGAL. Seeing as how we used military action against Iraq in 2003 after Congress passed the AUMF in 2002 and we went based on the same basic WMD intelligence and under the same UN authority that Bill Clinton did when he took military action against Iraq in 1998. (why do people always seem to forget this fact??) Jeravicious 00:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that argument does presuppose that Clinton's bombings were legal too. I suppose it might win you some arguments against Democrats. --Saforrest 05:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is his wife the former Joyce Pierson? is Pierson her maiden name? was she married before? to whom?

if it's her first marriage then maybe Joyce nee Pierson??? Wikipedia must have a style rule for this. But former sounds like she changed bodies

why was he given it. And following the swine flu discussion it comes out of the blue

sub-section proposed:

Some critics say Rumsfelds conduct in the morning of 9/11 might be inadequate to the duties of a secretary of defense. The allegations reach from `criminal negligence` to complicity and cover his duties as a political leader and as a military commander. [3]

The criticism to the transition of the military and society (mentioned above, see chapter `G.W. Bush Administration) was to be expected. So Andrew Krepinevich, Executive Director, before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities testified already in 1999 "One may conclude that, in the absence of a strong external shock to the United States—a latter-day “Pearl Harbor” of sorts—surmounting the barriers to transformation will likely prove a long, arduous process." [4]

`The expression `Pearl Harbor´was used by Rumsfeld himself too 9.August 2001: “Rumsfeld further gave the game way by warning of the "increasing vulnerability of the US" to a "Pearl Harbor in space". [5]

As Bob Woodward informed us in "America's Chaotic Road to War" (Washington Post), "Bush tries to keep a daily diary of his thoughts and observations. That night, he dictated: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." [6]

In the morning of 9/11 Rumsfeld did not what his critics judge as being adequate to "the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century". Documents show that Rumsfeld got the information about the ongoing hijackings and that he then decided to take his breakfast with Wolfowitz and Senator Cox. [7]

So he was not present in the `war room´(National Command Center, about 300 feet from his office), he did not confer with his generals, with the FAA, with NORAD. Critics point out that he did not care for the scrambling of the jet fighters of Andrews Airforce Base, 10 miles away from the Pentagon. This missing of direct information of interceptors doing the so-called àir policing´ added up to the lack of information by his staff caused by his absense.

So no decisions were taken by him untill about 10:30. When Bush -25 minutes after getting the information "America is under attack" finally spoke to the press at 9:30, Rumsfeld still had breakfast with Senator Cox. [8]

Defenders of Rumsfeld argue

- he was not informed about the hijackings. (This is not true proven by fact, logic and law.)

- he was not responsible: as a political leader he had not to care for military duties (This is false again. If the standard operational procedures to scramble fighter jets fail it is the job of the superiors to ask why. In case of a `normal´ hijacking Rumsfeld would have to take decisions about release of prisoners, sending money, saving atomic plants, phoning Castro or whatever. Together with the president and vice-president or alone. His first duty is to be well informed in general and especially by the inspection of the hijacked plane by `his´ interceptors.)

- it was a police job to care for hijackings or a military job on low, local level (completely wrong: how could anybody know that the attacks were not the preliminaries of an all out war ?)

- he was misjudging the situation ( like the statement of Wolfowitz "There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately" [9] .But the opportunities to act otherwise are already pointed out. A misjudgement of a leader in this position by being not informed can be called criminal negligence)

- he was so shocked and unprepared that he could not act appropiately to the crisis (the MASCAL plan [10] shows how exactly Pentagon officials were prepared. The PENREN Pentagon Renovation ptrogramme was to be finished five days later for the wedge where AA77 plugged in. Hundreds of firefighters, police, paramedics and camerateams knew exactly what to do after the first impact, without having any foreknowledge about hijackings. Hundreds of millions of TV watchers knew already that the situation is critical and asked if the impacts must happen completely unhindered. `Jumpers´ knew what to do. They chose death when Rumsfeld chose breakfast.)

- he did not know how to react since the impacts of the four planes were so fast. ( This statement implies a thought from the aftersight: the knowledge of the attacks ending with Unuted 93. How could any commander know that ? At least after Andy Card stated “Amaerica is under attack” the plausibility check was done that hijacked planes – 3 at that time – impact into symbols of the U.S.A. –2 at that time. But should we not assume that the staff of Bush and the Pentagon officials had no foreknowledge that there was no more attack was to come ? How did they know: that`s all ?)

Critics and defenders both agree that the skies over the U.S.A. were full with interceptors in the afternoon and the following days. But this is not the subject of this argument.

I want to add that Rumsfeld didn't sign the cards for dead soldiers families in Iraq and that he had a machine do it. I don't know if I can find it considering this was 1-2 years ago and briefly showed on the news. Can someone find and add it?

JJstroker 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought....put it on your personal blog, put it on your "I hate Rumsfeld" website...but leave it out of a NPOV factual encyclopedia website. Thanks! Jeravicious 00:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the fact that Rumsfeld used a writing machine to sign letters of condelence is a well-supported matter of public record, see [11] and [12]. I believe he has even apologised for it. --Saforrest 05:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there ANY basis for this claim? I can't find confirmation of it anywhere... ka1iban 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why it's controversial.. Project2501a 23:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no...i'm saying I can't even find anywhere it's even been said originally. I could write he has three testicles and is from the planet Gleemorp but that would be fantasy; just something I made up. With out even a "Soandso Magazine said..." or some kind of sourcing, this appears to be just that: fantasy, and it should be deleted. ka1iban 16:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was rather relevant that on 9/11, Secretary Rumsfeld was helping to carry injured people out of the Pentagon. It's the most important recent event in our country. Shouldn't what he did on that day be included?

perhaps you don't understand the point of this Wiki entry for Donald Rumsfeld. It's not to explain the factual details of his life and career...but rather to provide the reader with criticisms and bias regarding his life and to cast him in the worst possible light as possible. "Good acts" by Rumsfeld have no place here. Wikipedia = "The Blog for Liberals" Jeravicious 00:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please just hurry up and go from your blatentroll to blatentvandal phsse, so we can get this over with, and you can wind up back on the indefblocked list, and you can go start on sock#35325--205.188.117.10 05:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're not talking to me...I've never vandalized an entry nor have I ever been blocked from editing in Wikipedia. This is a "Talk" section, where opinions/ideas are discussed. Jeravicious 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the full text of the quote? the tail end of the phrase "not with the army you WISH you had" was removed a few days ago, but I believe he said all of it. A Google search or two could confirm it...ka1iban 16:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

upon further examination, the full quote IS listed in the quotes section. Nevermind; I'm just not paying attention...ka1iban 16:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Actually, I don't need to...I just restored it to how it was before.

It appears that the page has been vandalized. I have put up a little notice.

Some mention of the rumsfeld doctrine needs to be made, to refrence the page refering to it --maximusnukeage

I reverted the image to an earlier version. The white background just doesn't go along with the whitespace on the page. --Jiang, Talk 06:25, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Kissinger quote isn't in the cited source. Could somebody try to clarify it, or find a better source?

These comments are NOT neutral in point of view and are extremely poorly formatted. If you want them in the article so strongly, I suggest you reformat them and add them to the Controversy/criticism section, but they do not belong in his career summary section ka1iban 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to start an edit war here, but for the user who is continually trying to insert the content which begins... ">>>This was to be expected. So Andrew Krepinevich..." into the article, editing Wikipedia pages for clarity and within WP policy is not "vandalism". I removed your comments because they were critical and introspective of Rumsfeld. They are not neutral and if you want to keep them in, please feel free to rewrite them. Also, they may belong more in the controversy section (e.g. "Rumsfeld did nothing on 9/11") rather than the career summary section. Additionally, if you feel the article has been vandalized, a good place to post your concerns is on the talk page, not within the article itself.

Please post your opinions and intentions here before editing again, and please sign your comments (with 4 '~'s) so we know it's you. ka1iban 15:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No "edit war"? Good. I had the impression before. Now I will follow most of your advice. In my opinion the so-called "neutral" sentences like "Some critics have also argued that Rumsfeld" sound like bad jokes in comparison to what must be said. But "no war" - so I will rewrite it. About two days from now. This was me84.159.92.83 17:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC) And I will agree not to post in "career" - but I am not at all convinced not to do it. It is the top and turning point of his career. So I urgently ask you to open a section "9/11 - just for now as a part of the section "controversies". Have a nice weekend." "[reply]

I based my criticism on the assumption that the section on his career should remain a quick overview of his role(s) in government and business, without analysis of his effectiveness or performance. The questions your additions raise (did he react to 9/11 too slowly or without due concern?; is he incompetent? etc etc) seem more like criticism or controversy and not simple factual reporting. I think they'd go well in the controversy section. ka1iban 20:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Took out the vandalism allegation here. Posted a new version under `controversies`. Know that it is hard stuff - and I am very much looking forward what defenders might say and argue. It is me again84.159.84.217 10:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Have a good day and please post the section as son as possible. I do not find more neutralty than I put in. Defenders can only argue more when they see the allegations and the quotes. ---[reply]

Five days later now. I offered my 9/11 section here in the `discussion`and nobody discusses it. I see no edits. So I understand that I can post it into the article without being vandalized again.

No one has edited the article because the current version is pretty good and no one is "discussing" your proposed addition because you seemed appeased. You're free to make additions but please understand that others are free to make edits, as well. You should get a user ID so you're not just an IP address when you sign things. It'll help establish an identity on WP. ka1iban 15:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the flowers. i do not fear any discussion and edits. Especially I hope that information about the subject flourishes. If aspects get another note - why not ? The only thing which makes me feel uneasy is getting erased. This day and this man are too important not to shade a light on it. Thank you for your offer to help in registration. If it gets necessary I will adress it.

I have removed the following content:

Some critics say Rumsfelds conduct in the morning of 9/11 might be inadequate to the duties of a secretary of defense. The allegations reach from `criminal negligence` to complicity and cover his duties as a political leader and as a military commander. [13]

The criticism to the transition of the military and society (mentioned above, see chapter `G.W. Bush Administration) was to be expected.

The first paragraph uses weasel words to attribute a viewpoint to nebulous 'critics'. Please provide a credible and verifiable source for these claims. The second sentence is also an uncited claim.

In the morning of 9/11 Rumsfeld did not what his critics judge as being adequate to "the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century". Documents show that Rumsfeld got the information about the ongoing hijackings and that he then decided to take his breakfast with Wolfowitz and Representative Charles Cox (R-CA). [14]

This paragraph also attributes a viewpoint to nebulous 'critics'. It also presses a point of view in referring to Rumsfeld as "taking his breakfast", which none of the official sources describe.

So he was not present in the `war room´(National Command Center, about 300 feet from his office), he did not confer with his generals, with the FAA, with NORAD. Critics point out that he did not care for the scrambling of the jet fighters of Andrews Airforce Base, 10 miles away from the Pentagon. This missing of direct information of interceptors doing the so-called àir policing´ added up to the lack of information by his staff caused by his absense.

Again, nebulous 'critics'. "so-called" air policing. These are opinions which must be sourced.

So no decisions were taken by him untill about 10:30. When Bush -25 minutes after getting the information "America is under attack" finally spoke to the press at 9:30, Rumsfeld still had breakfast with Representative Cox. [15]

All the sources cited on the "alternative theory" site[16] seem to indicate that the breakfast with Cox ended sometime between 9am and 9:30am, if it matters. Most of that "research" seems to be a whole lot of confirmation bias.

What's left appears to be verifiable, though may need some grammar work. KWH 08:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So my friens- what kind of discussion is this ? You REMOVE the whole text instead of asking me to prove this or that word, this or that allegation. Do you call such behaviour a discussion ? Imagine you would silence me in a public discussion and then, here in the private, "explain" why you silenced me ....

I expect YOU now to restore the text - I did my best several times. You are urged now to integrate what YOU demanded to know. "Weasel words", because YOU do not know, because YOU do not read the quotations. So here is the nebulous critic No.1: "Paul Hellyer, former National Defense Minister of Canada:... Why did the President just sit in the schoolroom when he heard the news? Why did he not acknowledge that he already knew what was going on? As a former Minister of National Defense, when the news came out I had to wonder. Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews [Air Force Base]? Is it Andrews right next to the capitol?" [17]

Oh I see my friend- you trust "official sources" only. This is a so-called `circulus viciosus´ since "official sources" are not very eager to feed controversies in Wikipedia. But to make you happy I have an official one: "At 9 a.m. EDT Tuesday, as a hijacked Boeing 767 slammed into the World Trade Center, I was in the Pentagon in the private dining room of the Secretary of Defense. Don Rumsfeld, the Secretary, and Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary, and I were discussing how to win votes for the Bush defense plan that is now pending in the House and Senate." [18] I must admit that I do not know hat they had, coffe or tea. There is no official source for that. I only know: they are not sitting in the "war room" nor in an office but in the morning in the private dinig room. If you believe private dining rooms are command centers I cannot help you any more. But you ask for "weasily critics" again. Her is no 2. Mr. Meacher was minister in the Blair government. "The war on terror is a bogus" he writes, and read what he writes about the missing jet fighters: [19]

And again from me: I will add some more "nebulous critics" later. But what you call "opinion" is fact. You spread your opinions here. A fact is: there were no fighter jets from Andrews AFB. How shall I prove something which nobody has seen in the air? If your opinion is that there were jet fighters please be so kind and tell us which interceptors were there to saveguard Washington D.C. And about "air policing": it is a NATO terminus technicus. If you do not know what it is - although the word explains itself and although the AFBs having interceptors to be scrambled can were discussed in teh internet it is YOUR problem. Now I am going to stop arguing. First I want the artile to be restored, if you want with edits and the above quotes. But do not try to censor "controversies" by eliminating them and launch meta-discussions. I do not fear the discussion, as you see. But the subject of discussion must be existent. Be aware that YOU showed that YOU are not informed and that I try to fill in the needed informations. Ask me, no problem. But do not remove informations which were unknown to you. The sources "seem to indicate" ? Is this the kind of quote you prefer ? You do not quote anything, it is just a pure allegation. in comparison I quote her Mr. Cox: "...and I were discussing how to win votes for the Bush defense plan that is now pending in the House and Senate. When minutes later, the Pentagon itself was hit..." As you may notice there is no remark that indicate that he stopped discussion before the "minutes later"-event. As you said "if it matters" For sure it does not matter even if you were right. Especially it does not matter as a cause to remove all the work I have done. Be ashamed. That matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.94.197 (talk • contribs)

Please note that it is incredibly confusing for you to interject your comments within my message, as I can hardly even tell who's talking. I have copied them above, probably mostly intact.

I won't respond to your individual points as they have nothing to do with Wikipedia's goals, and I think I have been clear in pointing out the problems with the text. Please read Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability and Neutral point of view. These are some of Wikipedia's core policies and are non-negotiable. You are very welcome and encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia if you follow these and other policies and guidelines. If you disagree with these policies and don't feel that your writing should be subject to them, then you are at the wrong place. KWH 06:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC) ---[reply]

"If you disagree with these policies " nice try. I like that. Obviously for everybody it is you who disagrees with Wikipedia. It is you who tries to prevent any information about the two hours when Rumsfeld had to act as a secretary of defense. Wikipedia readers would like to know about Rumsfeld. Even IF YOU were right in your judgement about what I wrote (you are not, and the above controvery about vandalism shows that people agree that my words are according to Wikipedia rules)

So EVEN IF you were right and my work must be banned:

your position would be a lot stronger if you could provide an alternative version what Rumsfel did to protect America.

You are unable to do that. You just try to censor the Wikipedia article. That is all. it is obvious. More in the next days. it will have consequences.

(BTW: no problem with the edition of my answers as you did it. Good edits and good discussion: no problem. We cann all improve. ) This was me again 84.159.122.234 15:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC) :-))[reply]

This doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so let me say one more thing and if we still can't agree, we should get third-party arbitration. I have no problem with your additions; they paint an interesting picture of what happened on 9/11. But they are speculative, which means that they take events (or alleged events) and try to determine what REALLY happened in a situation. That's not what happens on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a REFERENCE resource, useable solely for information and not analysis or editorialization of that information. That means that WP is neutral, objective, and sparse on speculation. Take an example of a newspaper article: a newspaper may report a story on the merger of two banks. It may say how much the new unified bank will be worth, or what it will call itself. It could report if the bank thinks they may have to cut jobs after the merger. But the newspaper CAN'T make its own guesses about if people will be laid off, or suggest new names or report that they're pretty sure the CEO is going to fire people because he's an evil man. That's not *news*, not reporting. It's just speculative on the part of the newspaper. That's what Wikipedia is like, only with 'reference' for 'news'. There is a precedent for wikipages where certain controversies or debates *themselves* are analysed (like U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks). I think your additions about Rumsfeld's actions on the morning of 9/11 would fit well there. ka1iban 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

So many words to camouflage your censorship. If I would follow you I would say "Rumsfeld sat in his dining room with Cox and Wolfowitz together" - which is of no interest and meaning at all.

Notice: I do not say once: "R. is an evil man" like you try to insinuate in your newspaper example. I point out the MEANING of sitting in the dining room without further assessment. The MEANING is only deductable by showing the duties and opportunities of a secretary of defense. The comparison may be judged this or that way (critics-defenders).

Without both informations (dining - no interceptors) nobody can ever understand what Rumsfelds role was on 9/11. You should decide if you make the proposal to send me into the nirwana of another article or that you have no problems to write about Rumsfeld on the monring of 9/11.

For sure the subject needs to be placed HERE. It is about Rumsfeld. He sat on his hands - without any speculation. It is fact. You cannot deny it. So you try to censor what others here already agreed to. More about that later. —This unsigned comment was added by 84.159.83.226 (talk • contribs) .

Nope, that's not how Wikipedia works. You're at the wrong site. There's 1,001 sites where you can criticize Rumsfeld all day, or even write your own blog and say anything you want. We don't do "critics vs. defenders". We just write an encyclopedia. And myself, I'm not a defender of Rumsfeld, for what it's worth. I've already pointed out our policy on verifiability and neutral point of view. You might figure it out if you read our guideline on Wikipedia:reliable sources, particularly the bit about Using online sources. It's not a personal thing, it's just that that's not what we do here. You might notice that they don't do it on the German Wikipedia either. KWH 01:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too late...almost every paragraph in this article has criticisms of Rumsfeld in it. Go back and read it from top to bottom. I was going to try and clean it up and make it less biased, but that would take an entire rewrite. I Love Wikipedia!! Wikipedia = "The Blog for Liberals". Jeravicious 00:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

. Not too late for Happy Hour !

My offers to vandals and Censors

Answer a simple question first (yes/no): Is it important to know what the secretary of defense did on 9/11 to defend his country ?

If you answer YES, it is definetly necessary to put it into this encyclopdia

- restore my entry uncensored - restore my entry and edit it - make your own account what Rumsfeld did in these srucial hours

If you answer NO, these hours are of no interst for anybody

- remove the words of Armstrong about his first steps on the moon. They are only some words of an unimportant pilot some decades ago, and they lasted less than a minute. - Prepare for an edit war until the “Donald Rumsfeld” must be closed or - Let a third party decide what to do. Wikipedia community has wisdom enough to understand that it is impossible to hide that rumsfeld was sitting on his hands that morning. 84.159.119.16

This was from the Pentagon press briefing on Sept 15, 2001

But, if you think it's relevant to include links to conspiratorial websites like http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/ (which someone above is using as their source) be my guest...it looks like some kid created that website Jeravicious 21:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you for your proposal, Jeravicious.

I 84.159.113.94 13:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC) took the quote, edited it a bit, and posted it in full length. It would be nice if you add the source of that quote, and I will add the source of the Bush quote.[reply]

I knew it would be possible to come together since I made my six proposals. Long live Wikipedia ! Mr. Admin:

Whatever you believe, if you love Mr. Rumsfeld or not, nobody cares. You stop vandalism. Okay. You look for a good impression of the wikipedia information. Okay.

But even if you were a Republican, if you were a Rumsfeldian I do not understand why you take out any information what Rumsfeld did on 9/11. It was the only day in his entire life when he could prove his abilities as secretary of DEFENSE (not “attack”). The crucial two hours of terror he did not do anything. That is a proven fact. And you sort it out.

WHY?

Where is this proof that Rumsfeld did "nothing" in the hours following 911? I can't see how that statement could possibly be credible. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he didn't do what you thought he should have done in those hours? Detriment 08:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer (A-E):

A) “Where is this proof”? Look for “Articles”.

B) “"nothing" in the hours following 911?” This is a wrong question because obviously I was not talking about the FOLLOWING hours but about the hours WHEN 9/11 occurred. And so it is obvious too that the issue is not NOTHING he did but “nothing about 9/11”

C) “he didn't do what you thought he should have done” This allegation makes the issue a personal problem between me and Rumsfeld. Which it is not. To make it cristal clear: What did you think he should have done? What does anybody think he should have done? I am so free to state: everybody expects the man responsible fpr defense to defend. Which includes: - go to the war room - confer with your generals, FBI, FAA, NORAD about the situation to get a picture - ask for the interseptors especially of Andrews AFB (“Where are they ? Why are they not been scrambled?” and so on) - make first decisions

D) conclusion “Wouldn't it be more accurate to say …” No, not at all. It is a fact that the two hours existed. If you do not want me to fill the description of this period of time feel free to do it yourself. YOU TELL US what he did when you have better information. My guess is you cannot tell the public that these two hours were not crucial in world history. Additionally you cannot find other information than that which I tried to provide.

E) So my question stands: WHY ? Why are you blocking ANY information about what Rumsfeld did in these hours ?

I have added sources for your additions and edited them for clarity and brevity (Senator's Clarke's testimony is available through the link; no need to reproduce large sections of it here). Hopefully we can move on from this now. ka1iban 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes . ka1iban, I like that edition very much now. It is to the point, written by a native speaker, concise. Just okay. The only thing I wanted is that these hours in his life are mentioned. Now every reader who is interested may go on, read more, conclude this or that - but he knows where Rumsfeld was and what he did. Tht`s all. Finish. Thank you. 84.159.113.94 20:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Text was removed: "Within 60 minutes of American Airlines Flight 11 striking the World Trade Center, Rumsfeld raised the defense condition signaling of the United States offensive readiness-to DefCon 3, the highest it had been since the Arab-Israeli war in 1973.[20] " Norad actions can not be pointed back to Rumsfeld. And even if the statement was true it was much too late. Remeber Andy Card saying "America is under attack" at 9:05.

The statement is verifiable and has nothing to do with Norad, nor is it intended to.

So why do you not provide a reliable source ? And I add again: "America is under attack" was OFFICIALLY noted at 9:05. Not 60 minutes later.

I have added a link to the 9/11 report [See page 554 - footnote 8 for chapter 10] - it clearly states that the secretary of defense directed the nation's armed forces to Defense Condition 3 - This is for all the armed forces.

The new source you have added - the report - is a good source for the times which I changed according to the commissions reprt. Your mistake was only 60 minutes which I had to add. I added as well Andrews AFB which was "on highest state of alert", that is QRA, too. See their own homepage. It would be unfair to forget the Washington based AFB. Do not remove it, this site is on my watch now again.84.159.78.80 19:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source for the statement that Andrews AFB had fighters at QRA on 9/11? "Miraculously both were too late. Andrews AFB in Washington, home base of Airforce'1 and of two squadrons of fighters, di not scramble their pair of F-16s in QRA (quick reaction alert, a NATO SOP) for airpolicing."

Additionally: hijackings without any impacts in towers are under NORAD and Rumsfeld duties too. So the timeline for their failure begins at 8:13.84.159.105.190 07:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

his text has again been removed:

Rumsfeld's activities on September 11 2001 were outlined in a Pentagon press briefing on September 15 2001. [21])

Some critics feel that his actions were ill-advised or incompetent, and that his alleged slowness in reaction was unacceptable in response to what some have called the "Pearl Harbor of the 21st century". [22] Specific actions which have been criticized include his remaining in his office when the crisis management process was ramping up, his resolve in keeping his morning schedule which included a breakfast with then US Representative Chris Cox, and his failure to oversee the launching of interceptor jets from Andrews Air Force base, which some believe may have changed the day's outcome. [23]

I see that as soon as this text was added to the article, it appeared shortly thereafter on the cited site www.medienanalyse-international.de. I don't believe that this is coincidence, and shows that the site in question is a personal website which should not be used as a source per our policies and guidelines on verifiability and reliable sources. It appears that our policy on no original research and advertisement may also apply. It is believed that the events in question are (nominally) truly described (though the interpretation is subjective), but if this is to be included as a "controversy" then the existence of the controversy and interpretation must be shown by a citation which meets our standards. I was unable to find such a citation. KWH 06:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwh|KWH - this is censorship AGAIN. Have you ever heard of "amendments"?

1. The issue is: What did the secretary of defense do to defend his country. Nothing else, nothing less.

2. The issue is NOT this or that website allegedly "in question" and not that you are "unable" to do this or that.

3. The above text was widely agreed, it was the fith version after a long discussion. It was not at all my text, I am 84.159.124.241

4. Instead of adding information about what Rumsfeld did to defend his country you remove it. This is against all sense of Wikipedia. If you try to rely on Wikipedia rules try to understand them first.

5.What you are "unable" to find is widely described in the internet. I add two more sources to the text which are widely known and reliable. Do not dare to censor them again. Feel free to argue how Rumsfeld defended the U.S.A. in the morning of 9/11 when America was attacked.

Well, it is *my* text, and I don't appreciate being cajoled into writing it only to find out that you're using it as grist for your conspiracy-website mill. Wikipedia is NOT a platform for preaching your ideas (or a soapbox). This comes directly from a Wikipedia Policy page:

"What Wikipedia is not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article."

I've removed your additions on that basis and I feel I'm justified. If you don't like Rumsfeld, fine; hell, I hate the bastard. But this isn't the place to try and slander him or argue whether or not he did enough on 9/11. This is not a public forum for discussion about ANYTHING. It's an online reference resource. One last thing? Can you please please please REGISTER with Wikipedia and get a nickname (like Ka1iban or KWH)? Especially if you're going to be editing so much. People tend to take you much more seriously if you have an established identity when you sign on rather than some random IP address. Thanks. ka1iban 15:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What Wikipedia is not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view."

And what do we read written by you:

“I've removed”

“I feel I'm justified.”

“If you don't like”

“hell, I hate the bastard”

“But this isn't the place to try and slander him or argue whether or not he did enough on 9/11.”

Exactly. I never used the word “enough”. My simple demand is an account what he DID on 9/11. Any judgement if this was ENOUGH can be done by the readers. I do not , NOT AT ALL , need any refernce to critics who say this or that. It was you who wanted to make the text neutral by mentioning critics. Instead of just telling: “Rumsfeld made some phone calls, R. met Senator Cox in the dining room, R. did not confer in the National Command Center, R. did not order the interceptors.”

“It's an online reference resource.”

YESYESYES ! When you want critics in the text then I offer you my favotite one. When you said it is not enough I offered you some more (and left out the italian, german, frendch websites). But again: I would prfer the pure facts without ANY reference to critics, without ANY judgement.

“going to be editing so much. “

I do not want to edit “so much”. I want a simple account what Rumsfeld did on 9/11 in the morning between 8:15 and 11:00. It is as if I were asking Wikipedia to give an account what a certain Neill Armstrong did when setting foot on the moon.

It is about the reliability of Wikipedia. Nobody cares if you hate bastards or if you are quoted and quoting or not. BTW, I am sure the website which you hate so much gets enough attention without Wikipedia, I must not advocate it.

The issue is Wikipedia and a fill account of Rumsfeld in the Rumsfeld section. It is not your guts and not me.84.159.119.144 08:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I tried to cooperate with you. I don't know if it's your English skills or your obstinacy, but you don't seem to get it. I'm done. ka1iban 16:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the "I am done" means that you refraine from censoring the article and remove the version nr.6, it is okay and we save a lot of time. Feel free to add more information - but do not remove because of every-day-changing causes. I will keep an eye on it. It is my obstinacy, btw.

I think we should have a little more on his congressional career. What committees did he serve on? Did he vote for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, for example, etc. --Blue387 08:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other people without an academic background in any subject that would suit them for work as Secretary of Defense have fulfilled their responsibilities adequately. However, Rumsfeld has been very active in pushing his own strategic decisions on the Joint Chiefs. Is there anything in his academic background that would have prepared him for performing this function? The article does not even say what his undergraduate major was, and it seems his only post-grad work was a brief stint in law school. P0M 00:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relevant? I don't believe most people would care about his academic background. More important is "can he do the job?". My opinion is yes. He managed to defeat a whole country with a minimum of troops. I would say that makes him a great leader. Wallie 13:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe his academic credentials are irrelevant to his qualifications to hold high office. If he has qualifications of that sort then they ought to be mentioned. P0M 08:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He went to Princeton. He served in the Navy. He served as U.S. Secretary of Defense in 1975. He was a CEO in the private sector. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives. That seems like some pretty decent credentials to me. One's qualifications don't just necessarily come from school...it comes from real world experience. Jeravicious 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the layout of the table, which details the reasons given by the six Generals as to why they would like Mr. Rumfeld to go. Very professional indeed! Wallie 13:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it may be 'professional' (an odd characterization for an open-source pseudo-encyclopedia, but i digress), however it takes up an inordinate amount of space merely to reproduce seven quotes. it should be trimmed into a conventional list of quotes. it will take up less space. Anastrophe 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the concern for space here? Wikipedia is not paper. I thought the layout was helpful too (if difficult to edit).-csloat 09:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

an encyclopedia is supposed to be a clear, concise, NPOV source of information. not a current events depository. relative to his long career, the table betrays its bias/POV basis. it's a huge table created to display prominently exactly seven quotes. why? because it's a hot political topic....right now. in the scheme of history, and probably his legacy, compared to the descriptions of his past history and legacy, it's an absurd inflation of a current tempest. as it stands, i converted it to plain formatting of quotes, reducing to one the number of quotes attributed to easy person, and while it did reduce the space consumed, it's still way overblown - again, when taken against the overall entry of a political figure with a long career. it's called 'balance', and it's not there yet, by any stretch. Anastrophe 15:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense then, to remove the table, but your implication that the discussion of eight generals calling for his retirement should be removed entirely or shortened even further is silly. It is true that his current disgrace is but one moment in a long line of accomplishments and/or other disgraces (depending how you look at some of his career), but it is nonetheless one of the most significant, no matter what side of the political fence you sit on. Defenders of Rumsfeld are quick to note that this is the first time in history generals have called for the resignation of a SecDef so publicly. Some have even claimed it is tantamount to a military coup! I don't agree, of course, but my point is that both sides consider this significant. Whether it withstands the test of time is another question, of course, but it seems pretty obvious to me at this point that historians and biographers will definitely mark this moment as a key moment for Rumsfeld's career as well as for the Bush Administration in general.--csloat 21:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of Rumsfeld (quite the opposite), but I must weigh in with Anastrophe on the relevance of quoting the generals in an encyclopedia article on Rumsfeld's career. I feel the quotes are relevant, but in a different article. A more appropriate article might be on controversies surrounding the conduct of the war. I do not feel strongly enough to remove someone else's contributions, but I suspect that in a few year's time those quotes will seem excessively detailed and replaced with a simple sentence such as "Numerous retired generals publicly criticized Rumsfled's conduct of the war and called for his resignation or replacment."--Mikebrand 04:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add this but I don't understand the table formatting. Wesley Clark is actually General #7 to come out in support of Rumsfeld's resignation, giving us 8 total. Can someone add Clark to the list? See here for details.-csloat 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to add the 4000+ retired Generals names to the table who haven't come out against Rumsfeld and even the names of the 4-Star Generals who've already publicly expressed their support for Rumsfeld like Tommy Franks, Richard Meyers, etc.

table removed. took up too much space for seven quotes. Anastrophe 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Option
Can you get back to Senator Kucinich on the iraqi death squads thing? Thanks, Okthen 16:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section should be removed or moved to Ray Mcgovern's own page becouse of its irrevelence to donald rumsfeld, and its obvios NPOV --MadDogCrog 05:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This area also seems to be a violation of of the Wikipedia NPOV. Either have republicans praise for Mr. Rumsfeld added, and also Praise from retired generals added . Even then I dont think they really belong. These sections should be deleted or moved to there own page.--MadDogCrog 05:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is both a relevant and notable incident; it is, in fact, the first time in history such a thing has happened. I am all for including material defending Rumsfeld too, but to pretend this did not happen is a little silly.--csloat 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critique on the government is the most important task for journalists and essential for every democracy. Praises to any government member are dispensable even for an encyclopedia. Raphael1 17:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]