Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Rumsfeld Stepping Down 899

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the at-least-no-one-dropped-a-house-on-him dept.
macinrack writes to tell us that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of the unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon. Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rumsfeld Stepping Down

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Speedy Press (Score:3, Informative)

    by truthsearch (249536) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:52PM (#16772181) Homepage Journal
    This only happend because the Democrats won the house. Rumsfeld offered his resignation to the President at least 2 times in the past, and was rejected.

    This is just playing politics. It's just like Pelosi stating she won't start any impeachment. Each party must concede something to get any support from the opposite party. Dems say they won't impeach and Bush gives up Rumsfeld. These people care more about their political games than actually taking a stand on something.
  • Re:Good timing (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kevin DeGraaf (220791) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:57PM (#16772311) Homepage
    Who the hell modded this insightful? Did you do any fact-checking whatsoever?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet [wikipedia.org]

    "Cabinet officers are nominated by the President and then presented to the United States Senate for confirmation or rejection. If approved, they are sworn in, receive the title 'Secretary', and begin their duties."

  • by IDontAgreeWithYou (829067) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:59PM (#16772355)
    He actually said that he would not ask Rumsfeld to step down and that Rumsfeld would have the job as long as he wanted it, but nice try though.
  • Re:Good timing (Score:2, Informative)

    by StupidHelpDeskGuy (636955) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:01PM (#16772429) Journal
    The election is over. I wonder if Allen will have the guts to forgo a recount, and live up to the statements he made in 2000. Keep in mind the gap refered to in this quote was 500 votes. Allen is behind by several thousand.

    And Allen on the Today show 11/8/2000:

    The morning after Election Day 2000, when Florida was counting absentee ballots, George Allen said, "we'll need to move America forward as soon as those votes are cast."
  • by truthsearch (249536) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:13PM (#16772693) Homepage Journal
    Robert M. Gates was the Central Intelligence Agency's deputy director for intelligence (DDI) from 1982 to 1986. He was confirmed as the CIA's deputy director of central intelligence (DDCI) in April of 1986 and became acting director of central intelligence in December of that same year. Owing to his senior status in the CIA, Gates was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities.


    - Walsh Iran / Contra Report [fas.org]
  • Condescension (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rasputin (5106) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:14PM (#16772739) Homepage
    "...mostly because he usually tells it like it is even when how it is isn't what people wish they were hearing."

    Rumsfeld doesn't "tell it like it is", he uses condescension and (indirect) insults to avoid answering questions he doesn't like. *That* is why people don't like him.
  • Re:Saddam (Score:3, Informative)

    by Threni (635302) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:19PM (#16772879)
    > That handshake was after Hussein had gassed the kurds with US supplied chemicals.

    No, it was five years earlier.

    1983
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ [gwu.edu]

    1988
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_at tack [wikipedia.org]
  • by Phoenix666 (184391) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:28PM (#16773051)
    If they try to ram anything through the Senate in the 6 weeks they have left, we'll filibuster it. Maybe if we get really lucky they'll pull that "nuclear option" bullshit now and erase the option of filibuster just in time for us to take over the majority. That will make bringing Bush to justice all the speedier.
  • Re:Good timing (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:30PM (#16773103)
    Yes, but the new electees don't actually start today... They start in January. We're still stuck with them until they get a chance to clean out their desks.
  • That's illegal. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:35PM (#16773209)
    The U.S. abides by the concept of "civilian supremacy," meaning the civilians have ultimate control over the military. According to the laws on the books, you can't be Secretary of Defense unless you have been out of uniform for over ten years. Thus, Generals aren't legally eligible to be SecDef unless they've been retired for over ten years, i.e. a civilian.

    This was the reason Colin Powell became SecState instead of SecDef, because the ten-year rule made it illegal for Powell to be SecDef. It's the same reason Wes Clark, Shinseki, and others cannot legally be SecDef for a very long time yet. Wes Clark can run for president (just as people wanted Powell to run in 1996), but he can't be SecDef until after 2010. Shinseki can't be SecDef until after 2013.
  • Re:Sore loser (Score:2, Informative)

    by rainmayun (842754) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:39PM (#16773283)
    Since when does Congress exercising its constitutionally mandated oversight duties constitute grandstanding?
  • by houghi (78078) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:43PM (#16773397)
    Information [cnn.com]
      here

    Quote:
    The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:

    # "A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."

    # "Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic -- especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."

    # "Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."

    # "The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."

    # "Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."

    # "A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."
  • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:55PM (#16773685) Homepage Journal
    >The military wanted this fight just as badly as the Bush administration did.

    The Army War College warned against it, General Newbold opposed it, General Shinseki didn't want to do it with that few troops, General Cordingley opposed it in public, and General Zinni of Central COmmand said it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time before the invasion.

  • Re:Sore loser (Score:2, Informative)

    by WATYF (945455) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @04:03PM (#16773863) Homepage
    hrmm... I dunno.... that's not likely the reason he left. Like you said, he could just be subpoenaed.

    It's more likely that he left because Bush recognized that the way the Iraq war was going was the major reason that his party lost the House (and possibly the Senate) and finally decided that he couldn't just stick with the same guys who'd been doing a crappy job this whole time. Like someone else said, Rummy tried to leave a couple of times before... it's just that now, Bush finally had the motivation to let the guy fall on his sword.


    WATYF
  • by twifosp (532320) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @04:46PM (#16774693)
    I don't think I was being clear enough and you've misunderstood my post. When I say silly piece of paper, I mean a bill passing a resolution for war. Not the consitution. When I say "get over it", I do not mean the war. I've never been a supporter of this debacle. What I meant is that people need to stop arguing over wether or not we've declared war. It doesn't matter if we declared "Cheese". We're still in the middle of a god damn war.
  • by Chris Burke (6130) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @04:51PM (#16774783) Homepage
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ [gwu.edu]

    Please read the entire article, which includes links to documents showing that the U.S. intelligence new about Saddam using chemical weapons against "kurdish insurgents". The document in question was written in Nov. 1983. They had known about Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians for longer. Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in Dec. 1983.

    Which is not to imply that Rumsfeld necessarily knew what Hussein doing, him being an envoy at the time not the Defense Secretary as he was yesterday. Our government did know, though, and sent Rumsfeld on his make-nice mission anyway. Never forget that -- when it was expedient, the government welcomed a genocidal maniac as an ally, and then turned on them when it was convenient. Try to remember when in twenty years you're hearing about the evils of Uzbekistan and the need for 'liberation'.

  • by dantheman82 (765429) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @05:21PM (#16775393) Homepage
    Perhaps it would be helpful to include an answer to the paper by Mearsheimer and Walt to provide some balance. They take a very strong (and rather conspiratorial approach) and thus perhaps those who read it should see a published response [harvard.edu] also posted on Harvard's site: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers /dershowitzreply.pdf [harvard.edu]
  • by Darby (84953) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @05:41PM (#16775751)

    Honestly, voting rights in America shouldn't be based on age, they should be based on independence and tax status. Its great being a liberal if someone else's tax money is being spent.


    You really need to keep up.

    The Republicans are the party of bigger government than even the Democrats and have been for 30 years
    They spend more, increase the size of government much more.
    Anybody who votes for Republicans for fiscal issues is a delusional moron who hasn't paid a bit of attention to the situation in decades.

  • by GreenSwirl (710439) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @05:48PM (#16775855) Homepage Journal
    Indeed, a quick glance at Digg's top stories shows that people were on their toes all over America, just waiting to pounce on any perceived shenanigans at the polls. Over 1/3 of all the stories on yesterday's front Political News page are about Republicans trying to steal the election.
    http://www.digg.com/politics/page3
  • by microbee (682094) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @07:48PM (#16777639)
    Title says all
  • by cold fjord (826450) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @08:01PM (#16777765)
    What war?

    I don't recall any declarations of war...


    Maybe this will help:

    For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.

    --- Rebert F. Turner, co-founder, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia School of Law
    FISA vs. the Constitution [opinionjournal.com]
  • Re:Sore loser (Score:4, Informative)

    by Shadow-isoHunt (1014539) on Thursday November 09, 2006 @12:33PM (#16786719) Homepage
    Congratulations on making the post that broke slashdot.

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...