Letter: Thanks to Rumsfeld … for finally leaving

Sunday, Dec. 31, 2006 | 7:03 a.m.

Lee Gliddon Jr.'s Dec. 20 letter to the editor, "Let's give thanks to Donald Rumsfeld," left a bad taste in my mouth, and after some consideration, I feel that it's necessary to reply.

Unlike Mr. Gliddon, I can find very little reason to give thanks to our most recently departed defense secretary for a job well done.

I personally see very little that Mr. Rumsfeld accomplished during his tenure as the defense secretary. His attempt, along with President Bush, to micromanage the war in Iraq, refusing to listen to, or take advice from, our military generals or anyone else in a governmental position, created what might best be described as a train wreck.

With the war in Iraq continuing on and on with no "light at the end of the tunnel," and a price tag of approximately $400 billion attached to it (not forgetting the deaths of almost 3,000 American soldiers), I find it next to impossible to give thanks to a man who may well be our worst defense secretary in our long history.

It's a "no-brainer" when I say that Donald Rumsfeld should have been replaced as the defense secretary a long time ago. History will validate that very thing. It's going to be interesting, however, to see if Mr. Rumsfeld's replacement, Robert Gates, will be any better at dealing with the war and the many other international problems facing this country. One has to surmise, however, that it will be impossible for Mr. Gates to accomplish less than his predecessor.

Larry Burgess, Henderson

archive