Town Square

Post a New Topic

Rumsfeld coming to Hoover

Original post made by Anonymous on Sep 9, 2007

Looks as if Donald Rumsfeld is coming to Hoover as a visiting fellow for one year. What kind of welcome should we give him?

Web Link

Comments (29)

Posted by Stanford conservative, a resident of Stanford
on Sep 9, 2007 at 9:08 am

""I'm appalled," said Stanford history Professor Barton Bernstein."

Anything that appalls Berstein is a good thing. Rumsfeld continues to serve his country....


Posted by D, a resident of Professorville
on Sep 9, 2007 at 10:07 am

"Rumsfeld continues to serve his country...."
You left off the last word: "poorly"


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 9, 2007 at 12:43 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by He's a war criminal, a resident of Professorville
on Sep 9, 2007 at 2:41 pm

he's not welcome. i'm getting t-shirts done up. you'll see them on the streets shortly.


Posted by John, a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 9, 2007 at 2:47 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 9, 2007 at 4:07 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Rummy R, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2007 at 6:53 pm

We'll just give him a dose of Palo Alto liberalism, and have him visit the Opportunity Center.


Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of Ventura
on Sep 9, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Pretty questionable in my mind. This appointment makes Hoover look less credible. I doubt they care what I think, but they must have *some* concerns about their reputation, and I'm guessing that more people than not look at Rumsfeld with doubts and misgivings. Whatever accomplishments he had prior to the war, his recent failures as a military and political leader will surely dominate his legacy in the eyes of most people.


Posted by Apples, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2007 at 9:23 pm


Another one of "those" in town...

God help us.


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 10, 2007 at 1:29 am

Reading this, no one can doubt that Stanford is mightily committed to diversity.
In selecting Rumsfeld for Hoover status, Stanford has reached to the bottom of the barrel to balance out the mostly brilliant and positive contributors to humanity that operate from their wonderous institution. What a blight on the record of an otherwise fine institution!

Rumsfield definitely belongs in a tower - along with another doubtful non-hero, George Schultz) - but it's doubtful that anyone who has followed their horrific, power-mongering careers - careers that claim "success" over the blood-stained bodies of their hapless victims - would imagine for a minute that any tower they inhabit wouldn't be surrounded by guards - to keep the both of them and their poor-excuse-for-strategic-thinking ideas as far away from the rest of humanity as possible.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 10, 2007 at 7:58 am

We should give him a warm welcome and the respect he has earned through many years of public service. Thank you Stanford and welcome Mr. Rumsfeld.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 10, 2007 at 8:31 am

Advocacy editing?
Sad.


Posted by Hurray, Rumsfeld!, a resident of Stanford
on Sep 10, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Hear, hear Rumsfeld! It takes courage to buck the hate propoganda machine and move here! Better get armed guards to protect you from the "tolerant and accepting" liberals around here who are committed to free speech only for those that agree with them, and so committed to diversity they want to run out of town anyone who disagrees with them.

One of the many reasons I am no longer a Democrat is that to be a to be for free speech, tolerance and intellectual pursuit is now to be a Republican.


Posted by jjostinato, a resident of University South
on Sep 10, 2007 at 7:44 pm

If you are so clouded in your partisanship that you cannot recognize that this man is incredibly intelligent, talented, knowledgable and that he has given so much of himself to his country, you are typical of what has traditionally been referred to as "so Palo Alto" but, as indicated by several posts here, a dying breed.


Posted by Beaver, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 10, 2007 at 8:09 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 5:28 am

Let us not forget that the Stanford community prided itself on its refusal to do defense work at SLAC and its exclusion of NROTC, and actually made SRI remove Stanford fom its name because they were doing war related work. While I have been a friend of Stanford through the years, it has been with the affection one feels for a somewhat daft friend whose idiosyncracies one ignores. We expect children to be childish, we hope adults will grow up.


Posted by Help me regain confidence in our Universities!, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 8:03 am

Thanks, Walter, for the reminder of what Stanford is. To refuse an entity because they do "war related work" when the military is the ONLY reason we still have the freedom to say and teach anything we want, allowing Stanford to even exist, is the height of hypocrisy and ingratitude.

Are there ANY reasonable, balanced universities left in the States besides MIT? ( They have Chomsky, but at least they are balanced out so that students can read and hear other points of view and actually practice THINKING, and they have ROTC)


Posted by Deep breath, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 11, 2007 at 8:16 am

Saying that the military is the only guardian of the Constitution lets the rest of America off too easy.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 9:31 am

There is a form of defeat that does not have troops marching down our streets. It is when our laws are subordinate to the General Assembly, our rights are circumscribed by a different picture of human rights and our trade is by leave of others. We get the greater by accepting the lesser.


Posted by read again, a resident of Stanford
on Sep 11, 2007 at 9:57 am

I didn't say the military was our ONLY guardian of the Constitution..I said that without it we would not exist. We have to always remember that our military is our last line of defense when no other option looks like it will work in time. I only hope we keep using our military before it is too late.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 11, 2007 at 10:00 am

Rumsford coming here may actually attract more like thinkers to move here also. I am all for it. It would be good to get more views here rather than the present everyone thinks the same mentality.


Posted by I read it again, a resident of Stanford
on Sep 11, 2007 at 10:07 am

oops, i see what you mean, I DID say "only"..but meant that without it we would have no freedoms. but I can see how you would take it to mean that there are no other guardians of our freedoms. of course, that is completely false. just that nobody else is our last line of defense.

sloppy writing. should focus on my work, instead!


Posted by Dr. Ferragamo, a resident of Stanford
on Sep 11, 2007 at 10:57 am


Why does Stanford hate Arabs?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Why do Arabs hate Arabs? Why do Arabs not defend Arabs?


Posted by Dr. Ferragamo, a resident of Stanford
on Sep 12, 2007 at 8:10 am


Wallis:

Using your "logic", no driver could be held accountable for exceeding the speed limit because lots of other people are speeding, too.




Posted by Free speech, a resident of Stanford
on Sep 12, 2007 at 10:43 am

How unfortunate that the editors chose to completely delete some of the comments made by Dr Ferragamo and are acting as if they never happened.
Why are the editors supporting Dr Ferragamo?


Posted by Dr. Ferragamo, a resident of Stanford
on Sep 12, 2007 at 10:51 am


Because the editors love Arabs?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 12, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Please, Froggy, your last was dense even for you.
On the other hand, speed limits are set for radar enforcement by a measure of average speed. That is why they do not use radar on some Palo Alto and Los Alto streets. It still does not explain why Arabs are Arab's worst enemies. I have to wonder what your Doctorate is in. I have some guesses I will keep to myself. Unless I need an adjustment.


Posted by Dr. Ferragamo, a resident of Stanford
on Sep 12, 2007 at 1:10 pm


Are you denying Stanford hates Arabs?


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Scottís Seafood Mountain View to close, reopen as new concept
By Elena Kadvany | 13 comments | 3,936 views

Who Says Kids Donít Eat Vegetables?
By Laura Stec | 9 comments | 2,030 views

Richard Linklater's Masterpiece "Boyhood"
By Anita Felicelli | 5 comments | 1,337 views

How Bad Policy Happens
By Douglas Moran | 21 comments | 1,319 views

The life of Zarf
By Sally Torbey | 8 comments | 968 views