I don't know that much about Donald Rumsfeld, particularly before he became the Secretary of Defense.  The most I know is that he worked in the former Bush Administration and he was a member of a few corporate boards.

I also don't know the intracies of the decisions he has made while he has been Secretary of Defense....which decisions were his, and which ones weren't.  Which ones could be deemed failures and which ones can't.

So this post isn't about Rumsfeld's mistakes or failures in reference to the War in Iraq.  This is more about what has gone down in the last week or so, with Rumsfeld catching a barrage from criticism for a taped Q&A session he had with the troops while he was in Iraq:

Wilson asked Rumsfeld, “Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?” Shouts of approval and applause arose from other soldiers who had assembled in an aircraft hangar to see Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

“We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north,” Wilson, 31, of Nashville, Tenn., concluded after asking again.

“You go to war with the Army you have,” Rumsfeld replied, “not the Army you might want or wish to have.”

First of all, the media is spinning the event, because that wasn't all Rumsfeld said.  Here's all of it:

SEC. RUMSFELD:  I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored.  They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed.  I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done.  And it’s essentially a matter of physics.  It isn’t a matter of money.  It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire.  It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.

 

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have.  They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.  Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it’s a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.

 

I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they’re working at it at a good clip.  It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon.  And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up.  And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up.  And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops.  And that is what the Army has been working on.

So you see, the media is only focusing on one sentence in a pretty lengthy passage, as if Rumsfeld was being insensitive and telling the soldiers to get used to it.  He explained that it takes time to produce the weapons and armor needed to fight a war.  That makes sense, although I don't know the time span nor do I know if it's taking too long for them to get it.

The fact is, everyone (well, that actually care about the troops) want to make sure the soldiers have adequate protection every time the leave the base and place themselves in harm's way.  Unfortunately that isn't reality.  While every measure should be taken to ensure the safety and well-being of our troops, not everything can and will be given to them precisely when they need it.  Hence the "go to war with the Army you have" statement.  Rhetoric aside, you've got to make do.  And the media placing spin on the story and politicans displaying fake outrage isn't going to change that fact.

But let's talk about the politicians for a second, particularly the so-called "maverick" John McCain and the "outcast", Trent Lott.  Both have displayed their criticism over this questionnaire over the past week.

You see, I'm going to be a frame of mind one day to deliver a rant with John McCain's name all over it.  Knowing me, it'll be sooner than later.  As for Lott, his comments are very funny and ironic because 1.  He's lucky he even has a Senate seat at all, which will probably change in 06, and 2.  He never showed he had a set of cajones while he was Senate Majority Leader.

But here's a good question for those two, along with RINO Susan Collins: what are you doing to make sure the troops get the protection they need?

You see, Rumsfeld isn't an elected official.  He only works for one.  However, McCain, Lott, and Collins are elected officials.  They are the ones that allocate the money into which budget and can pass legislation speeding up the production of weaponry.  What have they done?

For the last month or so John McCain has been more concerned with baseball and boxing than he has with the War in Iraq, even to the point of holding up legislation in the Senate through the lame duck session for his boxing bill.  Perhaps if McCain were more concerned about things that actually mattered, like the War in Iraq, troops would have more of the things they need.  Instead, McCain would rather act as if he is the President of U.S. Sports.

And the last thing that the Democratic Party should ever complain about is troop preparedness, considering they made two men who voted against funds that make troop preparation possible their candidates for President and Vice-President.  Their credibility on military and foreign issues is mostly shot, IMO.  When they actually start showing some sort of initiative of actually caring about defending this country or adequately funding the military, someone might actually take them seriously.

Rumsfeld had a Q&A session with the troops when no other elected official, senator or representative, would do the same.  He gave an honest answer to an honest question.  Add to the fact that the question that was causing the controversy was planted by an embedded reporter.  When McCain or Lott go to Iraq and get grilled, then they can talk.  Until then, they are nothing but talk.

I've been trying to avoid discussing Bill Cosby.  To be honest about it, I think he makes more of a fool out of himself as he gets older.  Cosby will always be Cosby no matter what, so when talking about him, NGCCOT (Nothing Good Can Come Of This).

The sports talking heads have hyped up two big games this week:  Steelers vs. Jets and Vikings vs. Seahawks. 

To a point, they're right to hype these games.  Steelers/Jets is a potential AFC playoff game, and the Steelers have shown they are vulnerable to a defeat in the last three weeks.  Minn/Seattle is for playoff contention, and chances are that whoever loses this one will not make the playoffs (Although I think both will end up making it anyway.).  Also, both Mike Tice and Mike Holmgren are in the hot seat this year to make the playoffs.

One that's going under the radar is Tampa Bay/San Diego.  Let's see if the Bucs are as good as everyone is hyping them to be.  I haven't been impressed, and it's irked me that people are picking Tampa Bay to get that sixth spot in the NFC playoffs when Carolina is on a four game win streak and beat Tampa Bay in the process.  Considering both Tampa and Carolina are 5-7 every game is crucial from here on out.

Could we see another upset from Marvin Lewis and his Bengals?  It's possible.  They snuck the Ravens last week.  Now they face the defending Super Bowl Champions.  The only chance they have lies on the arm of newly-hyped Carson Palmer.  Will he show he's on the level of Rothlisberger, or as shaky as Kyle Boller?  I know one thing, I'm not screwing up my picks by betting on a youngster.

Here's what I got:

- Atlanta over Oakland (although this one will be close)

- Baltimore over Giants (this will be an ugly game)

- Buffalo over Cleveland

- New Orleans over Dallas (once again, people are hyping up Dallas too much.  Jones cant do it on his own)

- Indianapolis over Houston (Peyton will break the record today.  Watch.)

- Jacksonville over Chicago

- Minnesota over Seattle

- New England over Cincinnatti

- Denver over Miami

- Jets over Pittsburgh (the woo-ride is over)

- Detroit over Green Bay (yup.  I said it)

- San Francisco over Arizona (yup.  Said that too)

- Carolina over St. Louis (this needs to be a blowout.  Wrap up Chandler's career, guys)

- San Diego over Tampa Bay

- Philly over Washington

And Monday Night...Tennessee over Kansas City.

Key games are Steelers/Jets, Minn/Seattle, San Diego/Tampa, Det/G.B., Carolina/STL, and Cinn/N.E.

All in all, this should be a great week of football.

Now that the regular season of college football is over, I suppose it's time to go into another rant about the highly flawed and elitist BCS system.

As I was telling others earlier this week, I would have preferred the old independent bowl system over this tripe.  At least they were trying to maintain tradition rather than claiming to solve a problem.  For the second straight year, we have three or more undefeated teams (it's five this year).  And we have a major problem where a previously unranked team gets a BCS bowl bid with three losses (Pitt) gets in over a team that only had one loss, which was to the undefeated defending national champions (Cal-Berkeley).

On OkayPlayer I've been pedding around an idea that would eliminate this whole situation by creating a new BCS playoff system.  Tell me what you think about this:

- 14 teams.  The top seven from the West, and the top seven from the East.

- Keep the BCS polling system, but change it to two polls ranking the top 15 from each region every week, instead of 25 within the nation.

- Give the top team from each region a bye from the first round.

- Allow the teams to have playoff games in their respective regions, using neutral bowl sites for the playoff games.

- The New NCAA Championship Game would pit the Western Regional Champion vs. the Eastern Regional Champion.

- Allow the individual bowl committees to organize and run the playoff games.

- The BCS committee could decide which bowl sites would host playoff games, as they do the BCS bowls now.

- The major bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Orange...am I forgetting one?) get specific dibs on the Regional Championship games and Championship games.

- NO AUTOMATIC BIDS FOR CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS.

Now, let me explain why I decided on some of these provisions...

First, 14 teams.  Most want 16, but I think giving the top team from each region a bye in the first round would create incentive for teams to continue playing hard throughout the season up to the end.  In other words, the number one team in the nation would have a good reason to play hard  through their conference championship game and get a week off.

I think it shouldn't be less because that way it covers most - if not all - of the teams with undefeated or one-loss records.  I think there should be an attempt to create a system that includes those teams.

The "new" poll.  The dynamics of the current BCS poll wouldn't change.  But it would be structured to show the teams from the two regions where they are in the standings week after week.  The design would also help to make the postseason look like two actual regions, and thus help to eliminate some of the controversy of having one national poll, as it is today.

Regions.  One of the biggest oppositions (or excuses, which ever way you want to see it) to a playoff system is the travel time and cost to the fans and to the teams.  Keeping it at regional sites would at least prevent Miami from having to travel to, say...Pasadena to the Rose Bowl for a first round game.

Will this mean that on some years one region will be stronger than the other?  Sure.  In fact, I expect one of the regions to possibly have to dip down to grab teams that might be ranked 20 or possibly 25th in the AP or ESPN coaches' polls to get that last playoff spot in the region.  But ask yourself; is it really any different than the NFL, where the AFC has been far more superior this year to the struggling NFC?  Is it fair that more than likely an AFC team will be lucky to get in the playoffs at 10-6 this year, while it's possible that the NFC West champion could have a 7-9 record?  No.  But it's the rules of the game, and it's created to keep the same rivalries and matchups dating way back in yesteryear.

Besides, you have to show you are able to be a force in not only your conference, but the region.  This would make sure teams maintain strength of schedule on both sides and not just rely on their conference schedule to pull them through.

Bowl/Bowl committee participation.  These guys generally do a great job running the bowls, and are able to hype the bowls and get people out to the stadiums.  It's important to allow them to continue.  And it's still allows some sort of tradition within the playoff system.  And since the major bowls have a lot more to lose from switching over to this type of system, it only makes sense that they would have dibs on the regional championship and national championship games.

No automatic bids.  That's one of the biggest reasons why the BCS is so fouled up.  There are six conferences guaranteed to receive an automatic bowl bid:  the ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10.  While their means of obtaining conference champions are fair for the most part, it isn't in regards to seeding playoff contenders.

In an actual playoff system, would Pitt get in it?  No.  Especially not over Cal.  But due to the weakened Big East, and the fact that all they had to do was have a better conference record, they received an automatic bid and thus the $14 million dollar BCS spot over teams who were no doubt better than them.  And before people think I'm just picking on Pitt, under the current BCS system all it would have taken was a Pitt loss on Saturday for 6-5 Syracuse to get in.  If Oklahoma had been upset in the Big-12 title game on that night, unranked 7-4 Colorado would have gotten a BCS bid.  And the automatic bid rule guarantees that each conference will collect BCS money no matter how poor their conference is.

Before you say, "Yeah, but in the playoff system you suggested, an unranked team could possibly get in the playoffs."  True.    But it's much better for a team to get a first round game and possibly lose than get a big $14 million dollar payday at the expense of a one-loss team.

Take the Texas controversy this week, where there was an plea made by Texas coach Mack Brown last weekend and an email campaign made by Texas fans to AP sportswriters to put Texas over Cal for a BCS bid.

I suppose you can say it worked, although there's really no way of telling how much Brown's pleas and Texas fans emailing sportswriters influenced the lot of the sportswriters in the AP poll or the coaches in the ESPN/USA Today poll (especially since the coaches poll is done by private ballot).  And a lot of criticism has fell on Mack Brown for what happened.

But this goes back to the old 90's saying, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."  The fact is, if there wasn't so much money and prestige on the line for only 2 coveted spots created by this system Brown would not have had to do that.  In fact, a number of people felt Brown would have been on the hot seat for next season or even fired at the end of this one if Texas (10-1) did not make a BCS bowl this year.  So it was real simple; either pander to the writers and coaches or risk being fired now or next year.  He chose to pander. 

People can complain all they want, but the bottom line is, Mack Brown has a job.  And Texas is $14 million dollars richer.  I can't get mad at him for working the system to his advantage.  And don't be surprised if others don't follow his lead in the years to come, as this failed system has been renewed to 2010 with Fox Sports.

There are six automatic bids and two at-large ones in the current system.  If you aren't a member of one of those six conferences that can get an automatic bid, you have to fight the members of the other conferences and the teams that don't win their conference (Texas is in the Big 12, Cal is in the Pac-10) for those two spots.  And to show how hard it is to do that, this year Utah will be the first non-major conference team since this system has been created to go to a BCS bowl.  And they had to go undefeated in order to do so.

My solution isn't perfect.  No doubt some teams will get salty if a team that got into the playoffs over them had a lower rank in the AP or coaches' polls.  But it's better to have this than a system that is elitist-driven and only focused on a handful of teams.  This will make college football more fair and gives teams from all conferences a real chance at a national championship.

It's only 13 games in four weeks:  six for the first round, four for the regional semifinals, two for the regional finals, and the NCAA Championship Game (call that whatever you want).  The most that one team will have to play and run the table is four games.  That's not unreasonable at all.

Of course, I don't expect this to be implemented.  The conferences are making too much money for doing too little.  But a brotha can dream, cain't he?  If you have any other suggestions or complaints about this solution, feel free to address them in my comments section, the tagboard, or email me.

Ha.  MoveOn.org was making some noise yesterday.

Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."

A scathing e-mail from the head of MoveOn's political action committee to the group's supporters on Thursday targets outgoing Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) chairman Terry McAuliffe as a tool of corporate donors who alienated both traditional and progressive Democrats.

For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base," said the e-mail from MoveOn PAC's Eli Pariser. "But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers."

Sounds like a declaration of one within the Democratic Party to me.  As I and others have stated before the election, there will be a clash within the Democratic Party between the far left (Dean, the 527's, etc) and the corrupt moderates (The Clinton machine).

This won't create a ripple immediately.  But it is a sign of whats to come in the next couple of years.  Next month we'll see who will have the upper hand when Howard Dean and Harold Ickies contend for the DNC chairman seat.

Here's what's really funny, though:

"In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive," the message continued. "Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."

MoveOn.org thinks it's any different than any corporation or special interest group.  Right.  Ask them who their biggest contributors were?  The answer:  the heads of corporations, particularly J. Peter Lewis and George Soros.  They act like they're different from any other corporate or special interest group out there.

And some good all of that money did.  They outspent the Republicans, and the Republicans still beat them, and pretty badly I might add.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that might mean you can't just place any dope out there to run for office and expect him to win because you got a ton of money.   Aw, what the hell do I know...

It's gonna be fun watching them destroy the Democratic Party.  They are so blind and ego-driven that they don't realize that they were part of the problem in 2004, not the solution.

Reynolds at Instapundit is tipping readers to a blog post over at Democracy Project about Zell Miller's decision to join a law firm in Washington.

The sad part about this was that this wasn't Miller's original plans after he leaves the Senate in January.  He wanted to teach at his alma mater, Young Harris College in northern Georgia.

However, once he publicly announced his support of President Bush in the spring, a letter from David Franklin, a history professor at YHC who's wife is the academic dean at the college, wrote a letter to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution trashing Miller:

"You, Zell Miller, are a disgrace to your city, your county, your state and your country," Franklin wrote. "Your attack upon the U.S. Senate that you sit in now was so unpatriotic it boggles the imagination."

Disgusting.  After Miller read that he announced that he wouldn't return to the small college to teach.

I don't think people realize the tribulations and sacrifices Miller has suffered for his convictions.  If anyone had read A National Party No More they would know Miller really has a very strong love for the place he has lived virtually all of his life, and had talked about studying and teaching at Young Harris.  It's a shame that this prick's mouth stood in the way of his dreams, but I don't blame him one bit.

And is it a surprise that this guy was a part of John Kerry's Georgia campaign?  Didn't think so.  In fact, it's easy to see why Kerry bombed so badly in Georgia, with guys like this on his staff.

I can see Eugene Volokh's point.  But it should be noted that as acadamic dean Miller would have to work with his wife and possibly him in some form or fashion.  That the college didn't condemn or at least back away from Franklin's statements shows there was possibly a problem with Miller returning there.  And it didn't seem as if they were eager to encourage him to come back.  Considering that the college isn't much larger than a number of community colleges (in fact it only has 600 students) there is no doubt that this would have been a bigger problem that, say, the University of Georgia.

The Weblog awards, albeit a decent idea and was created through honest intentions, is not crucial enough to have people engaging in a blogosphere civil war.

I forgot to make my picks Saturday night.  Sorry.  I was watching the first season of Samurai Jack on DVD and got caught up.

Speaking of which, if you have never watched it, do so if you get a chance.  It's a great cartoon for all ages.  The emotion and depth that goes into it is unbelievable.  And it's not drawn out like anime.

Anyway, on to the NFL.  Once again, the top teams stay untouchable, although Pittsburgh shows signs of weakness.  It's only a matter of time before they get their second loss, and they were just wide right of a 60 yard field goal of catching it against the Jaguars on Sunday night.

The Jags showed a lot of heart in that game, but offensive consistency seems to be a problem.  Leftwich will be an NFL quarterback for a long time to come, but until he can get the ball to his receivers accurately the Jags will be on the outside looking in.  However a lot of people feel the Jags could get a wild card spot, especially since Baltimore and Denver both lost this week.

A Time Magazine press release (via Reynolds at Instapundit):

New York – President George W. Bush’s cabinet is more diverse than National Public Radio, Tavis Smiley tells TIME in an exclusive interview. “It is ironic that a Republican President has an Administration that is more inclusive and more diverse than a so-called liberal-media-élite network,” Smiley says.

Heh.

Actually Tavis, it's not ironic at all.  It's becoming the norm rather than the exception.  Most of the leftist media bastions have always been dominated by middle aged white people - from NPR to PBS to Pacifica on up.  The only ironic thing about your comment is that these organizations actually highlight diversity from organizations and criticize the ones they claim aren't diverse enough.

Hold up; that would actually make them hypocrites.  Never mind; forget I said that.

It's about damn time.

She's about a week or so late, but I'm glad she did it.

Her column is very good as well.