Forget the Intel Briefings
kwAwkLook deeper into the article. Everybody seems to be looking at the GQ and article focusing on the Intel Breifings and their covers showing that the DoD had put in some scriptures on the front page. I do find this type of intrusion of religion on the workings of our military to be unacceptable and crass, but if you actually read the GQ article there is something even more disturbing there.
Another such trespasser on Rumsfeld’s turf was the deputy national-security adviser for combating terrorism—an office that Rumsfeld once decreed does not exist. Its third occupant was a woman, Fran Townsend, and Rumsfeld’s contempt for her was well-known throughout the building. “You think I’m going to talk to this broad?” he would complain.
After repeatedly being snubbed, Town-send approached Rumsfeld at a principals’ meeting, the NSC gatherings of senior officials. “Mr. Secretary, if I’ve in some way offended you, I apologize,” she said. “I’m just trying to do my job.”
Whereupon Rumsfeld laughed loudly, put his arm around her shoulder, and boomed, “Ab-so-lute-ly not! Why, nothing could be further from the truth!”
Two years later, however, Townsend had received a promotion—to assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism—yet was still unable to command Rumsfeld’s respect. In the midst of Hurricane Rita, Townsend learned that Texas governor Rick Perry had signaled his willingness to cede control of the National Guard to the federal government. She called Rumsfeld’s aide and was told, “The secretary and Mrs. Rumsfeld are at an event.”
Townsend knew that. The event was an ambassadors’ ball; she was supposed to be there but was instead dealing with the crisis. “Put me in to his detail,” she ordered.
A minute later, Townsend was on the phone with Rumsfeld’s security agent, who then spoke to the SecDef. “The secretary will talk to you after the event,” she was told.
Later in the evening, her phone rang. It was Chief of Staff Andy Card. “Rumsfeld just called,” said Card. “What is it you need?”
Livid, Townsend said, “I want to know if the president knows what a f&%#ing @$$hole Don Rumsfeld is.”
Sighing, the chief of staff replied, “It isn’t you, Fran. He treats Condi the same way. Me, too. He’s always telling me I’m the worst chief of staff ever.”
What that passage seems to be saying is that in this administration which convinced many of you that they spent every waking moment fighting terrorism to keep our country safe from Al Qaida, the Secretary of Defense felt it was perfectly acceptable to simply ignore and blow off the President's assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. What if this had been urgent word of an imminent terrorist attack and Rumsfeld simply refused to take the phone call?
The article itself paints a very strange picture of a very disfunctional Presidency. Obviously Rumsfeld wasn't all that concerned about terrorism issues for one, and secondly Rumsfeld didn't feel all that loyal or responsible to the people in the White House. My guess the reason for that is Rumsfeld was not reporting to the people in the White House, rather he was hired and reported to the people at the Naval Observatory.
Can anybody seriously imagine anybody in Obama's cabinet telling Rahm Emmanual he is the 'worst chief of staff in history' and still having their job the next day? Can anybody imagine National Security Advisor James Jones being blown off by anybody in the Obama administration Bob Gates or Leon Panetta included? I can't.
What does it say about a chief executive officer who would allow his direct subordinates to be treated in this manner by another direct subordinate? For six years? It paints a picture of a President who simply wasn't in control of his administration. It paints a picture of a President who's many failures in office were simply more directly the result of his failed leadership than simply acts of nature. It also paints a picture of a President who wasn't as concerned with terrorism as he would have had us believe.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (15)
Wow, this reads like a Tom Clancy novel.
Yawn.
kwawk, I almost have no idea where to begin with this. Almost...
First of all, the article cites no other reference aside from Miss Townsend, who sounds every bit as classless as a bar fly. If indeed she had the cajones to use such vulgar language to the WHCOS, the woman deserved to be kicked out on her derrier.
Secondly (assuming even one word of this exercise in petulance is true), you somehow manage to again make all of this Bush's fault, as though he, and he alone is responsible for how Rumsfeld ran his office and his subordinates.
Thirdly, how any of this is evidence of Bush's alleged disregard for terrorism is beyond me.
What I do take away from your post is that you've happened upon an article that features the uncorroborated rants of a single individual, it was exactly what you wanted to hear, and you ran with it. In your continued zeal to destroy any memory of GWB, however, I would caution you that hitching your wagon to purely unconfirmed articles like the above accomplish little more than let your reader know you're stuck in an emotional time warp.
How come we never know what a bunch of F-ups are running the government until after the election is over. Now that would be a story. Otherwise, Donald got his due.
Personality aside, the former Secretary did do much for compelling the DOD and the Services to reconsider their platforms based strategy in favor joint capabilities concepts. This will greatly help our boys in the trenches, create greater utility, and reduce the cost of maintaining a modern fighting force. So, 1 out of 2 aint bad.
One more thing for the record, kwawk...
There is no doubt in my mind that Donald Rumsfeld was a colossal pr*ck. Heck, so am I. Doesn't mean I intentionally dodge my responsibilities, nor does it give anyone the right to cast aspersions on anything other than my personality.
My issue isn't with whether or not he was a jerk - it is with hearsay being presented as fact with regard to Townsend.
Wow, that's an amazing statement.
Actually, most people knew very well what a bunch of F-ups the Bush admin were. Let's see, ignoring warnings of 9/11 attack, lying us into war with a country that didn't attack us, destroying the economy, politicizing the justice department, ignoring a major city being destroyed by a hurricane, rampant corruption, cronyism, runaway deficits, tax cuts for rich during a war, housing bubble.....and on and on.
And as kwAwk's post shows, the Bush admin scandals just keep coming out. Drip, drip, drip. Anyone with half a brain knows that boatloads more of Bush F-ups will soon come out and keep coming out probably for years. There is a reason we called him the worst president in history.
What I would like to know is why you didn't know what was so obvious to the rest of us? Why do you think Bush's approval ratings were below 30% for most of his second term?
We interrupt this broadcast for yet another "blame-Bush" tyrade
Eggy:
I always give the President, even this one, the benefit of the doubt. Heck, I even ask that God give them the courage and wisdom to do what is right whomever the President is. I never judge a President because I have no clue what kind of information they receive, who really pushes the buttons, or even if they were good leaders. To me, all Presidents are just men (and perhaps a woman someday) and somehow it all works out. I think of Abe Lincoln and the mess he inherited and all the good boys he sent off to a war far from their homes to be slaughtered. But he was the man for the times. Same as good old George.
All the BS aside, what would the world be like if we had simply ignored Iraq and Hussein. In doing that I believe Hussein would have inevitably been co-opted by fundamentalism. He was already getting a little soft-hearted to religion.
1. They think they weren't, the polls were biased against him and his actual support was far higher. Still is, in fact.
2. They think the press was biased against him and drove his approval ratings down.
3. They think the public was biased against him and their disapproval was personal rather than having anything to do with how he
screwed upgoverned.4. They think reality is biased against him. And them.
"What leads you to think that Hussein would have abandoned the extremely effective political mechanism of his Ba'ath Party rule for Islamic fundamentalism?"
The fall of the Soviet Union, along with the increasing superieority of Western conventional forces combined with West's increasing vulnerability to unconventional terrorist attacks. It was after his defeat in the first Gulf War that Saddam began to adopt a more islamist face for his regime, including putting a verse from the Quran on the Iraqi flag, creating the Fedayeen Saddam, and providing material support for palistinian terrorism.
"Secondly (assuming even one word of this exercise in petulance is true), you somehow manage to again make all of this Bush's fault, as though he, and he alone is responsible for how Rumsfeld ran his office and his subordinates."
Not sure if this is just misplaced grammar or what. Lets rephrase this and see if it still makes sense: you somehow manage to again make all of this Bush's fault, as though he, and he alone is responsible for how [Bush's subordinate] Rumsfeld ran his office and [interacted with BUSH's other] subordinates."
Does it still hold water that Bush isn't responsible for how one of his subordinates treated his other subordinates?
CNC said: "First of all, the article cites no other reference aside from Miss Townsend, who sounds every bit as classless as a bar fly. If indeed she had the cajones to use such vulgar language to the WHCOS, the woman deserved to be kicked out on her derrier. "
First and foremost, adults use adult language. That is why they call it adult language. Secondly this is the same President who called a reporter from the Times a 'major league asshole', and who had a VP who told a sitting Senator to 'go fuck himself'. The proper decorum thing is off the table.
Third, if she would have come out anonymously and said this you would have attacked her as not having the guts to give her own name, but when she does give her own name you attack her personally. You're really just upset that she said what she did. And by using her own name and the names or two other people in the Bush administration she leaves herself open to being immediately contradicted by Condi and Card. What's that you say Condi? Nothing? Oh, okay.
If you choose to read the article, which obviously you haven't, you'd know that Draper has as many as 12 sources in the former Bush administration. They may not all have had the courage of Ms. Townsend to give her name, but there they are.
I did read the article, kwawk. Yes, he has as many as 12 sources from the previous administration. Yes, Miss Townsend gave her name. However, for all you know, she may also be lying through her teeth. That was my point.
Yes, adults use adult language, but just because Condi and Card haven't commented doesn't mean Miss Townsend is being truthful. I'd love to say how many times I denigrated a superior in front of another superior after being shafted. I'd love to, but I can't, because it's the height of unprofessionalism. I sincerely doubt events transpired as she claims.
As for the exercise in petulance, that was in reference to Draper's article, not yours.
That’s your modern WingNoosha movement: squawking endlessly about “personal responsibility” while avoiding it like the plague—to say nothing of “organizational chart responsibility.”
CNC, unless I’m misunderstanding what the article presents, snot really “hearsay.” Draper (a pretty well-regarded journalist) presents a direct quote that could only have come from the President’s Homeland Security advisor herself or the President’s chief of staff himself. (Unless, I guess, it conceivably came from someone who was in the room.) I couldn’t have said it better than kwAwk did; the proper decorum thing is indeed quite off the table. All the vapors and pearl-clutching over “bad language” is just tiresome, transparent and not that relevant.
And as kwAwk says, the other parties are free to contradict this account. So far I’m not aware any of them have come forward to do so.
Blah blah blah blah blaaaah............