Rumsfeld Stepping Down 899
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.
Sore loser (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me like he's just trying to hide. Cut and run.
Fact is, he'll still have to answer subpeonas.
Why Flamebait? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure sure, run away just as we get the chance to ask some real questions.
Seems to me like he's just trying to hide. Cut and run.
Fact is, he'll still have to answer subpeonas.
I agree, to a point, the timing to coincide with the GOP losses indicate, more than regret that his execution of Iraqi Freedom, but an attempt to duck a real grilling. He won't have a lot of people running interference for him now. This is going to really isolate Bush. It should be a very interesting 2 years.
Re:Sore loser (Score:5, Insightful)
Definitely could be... but since he's tried to resign twice now and been told by Bush he couldn't, it doesn't seem like a huge surprise that he finally did. Seems like a lot of people forget the times when he tried to leave.
Re:Sore loser (Score:5, Funny)
Re:waiting for the islaminazis (Score:5, Insightful)
What have YOU done to prevent terrorism? Nothing, instead you use terms like 'islaminazi' and you chicken-hawk around--all that does is make people want to punch you in the fucking face. You're an idiot, your views suck and the fact that you still want to fight means you probably should be in jail because you're anti-social, anti-freedom and anti-me. With people like you in this country (and when people like you are given a loudspeaker), it's no wonder people want to blow us up.
I fear ALL you religious nutjobs--be you Christian, Muslim or Jewish. I fear ALL of you blind followers, you who trust people who are proven liars--all on blind faith. Your faith to stupid causes is not admirable. Your arrogance is not admirable and no one cares what you think any more, because you DON'T THINK. You spit out whatever useless facts that someone else tells you to. You might as well not be a person because you're not adding anything to society. You're taking away the valuable oxygen and food that could be used by someone to make the world a better place, where country music is about your dog and your whiskey again and not about some dead soldier. Think with your mind for once, and stop doing what your preacher/general tells you to. Sheep. Sheesh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:resignation attempts (Score:5, Insightful)
In the wake of a scandal, Rumsfeld in efect said "Don't blame the Prez, I take responsibility." to which Bush responded "No, no, we're in this together." Both get to act all big about accepting responsibility while implying it's not really their fault and not really having any consequences.
Now he resigns, and it is accepted, in response to what? The fact he'll soon be answering prickly questions in front of a House oversight committee, and it will be easier for the administration if he's not a current member.
Re:Sore loser (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sore loser (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sore loser (Score:5, Interesting)
This mid-term election sent a more-than-clear message about the occupation in Iraq (It's not a war you know) and the corruption in the republican side of the house.
I'm really rather shocked and awed that they didn't see this coming.
Furthermore, I'm looking forward to investigations of election fraud. I was gratified to have heard that there was a large band of people dispatched out to observe the implementation of elections. It probably went a long way to prevent fraud from occuring or being attempted. But where it may have managed to occur anyway, I'd love to see them exposed... I'm sure most of us would.
Still, I'm pleased to see Rumsfeld doing his own Cut'N Run.
Re:Sore loser (Score:5, Interesting)
So I think the stage was set for this election to be below average and possibly even an outlier. Who knows what would have happen without the taint of Abramoff and with DeLay still in the driver's seat. The last-minute Foley scandal did't help, either. But just because it was the 6 year midterm doesn't mean it was inevitable that a not-widely-known-to-be-gay Republican would end up in a scandal for behavior bordering on pedophilia.
Even with all this, a lot of the races Democrats won were squeakers. In some, they were aided by a Libertarian third party that might have thrown the vote.
So I think it's quite remarkable.
As far as winning with dignity, I've never seen that happen on either side. Sure didn't happen in 2004 or 2002.
The funny thing about political statistics is that there are a near-infinite number to pick from. You chose "6th year midterm means ruling party loses seats in house and senate." But there are numerous variations on that. What is the statistic for "6th year midterm with president, house and senate controlled by the same party"? Or "6th year midterm during wartime"? Or how about both? Or other factors? And that's just the start conditions. There are plenty of variations for outcomes: a) presidents party loses seats in house OR senate, b) presidents party loses seats in house AND senate, c) presidents party loses CONTROL of house OR senate, d) presidents party loses CONTROL of house AND senate, e) presidents party loses a majority of the governorships, f) presidents party loses a majority of control in state legislatures, g) any combination of the above or a dozen other measures. It just goes on and on.
Without actually taking more into account than a very simple statistic, it's about as pertinent as using the winner of the Superbowl to guess the political outcome, or figuring out if a Star Trek movie will suck by which number it is. Human beings are programmed to search for patterns. It's too bad when those patterns make us stop paying attention to the actual details which make each situation unique.
Re:Sore loser (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like a new cocktail will be making its appearance at DC bars soon.
Re:Sore loser (Score:4, Funny)
Grunts Killed by People in Authority (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider the equivalent situation in politics. According to several in-depth reports (notably from "Frontline" at PBS), Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the White House (with the exception of Colin Powell) completely screwed up the post-war occupation of Iraq. Rumsfeld himself intervened in several important decisions and overruled the suggestions of senior commanders in the field.
Who pays the price? Nearly 3000 American soldiers died, and 50,000 soldiers are wounded.
Though Rumsfeld was fired today, he will still live well on his multi-million-dollar corporate pension. Yet, how will we restore the lives of 3000 dead soldiers and 50,000 severely wounded soldiers?
Re:Grunts Killed by People in Authority (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . not to mention 650,000 Iraqi civilians.
. . . not to mention nearly half a trillion US dollars from the treasury - er, I mean, from Chinese bankers.
Re:Sore loser (Score:5, Interesting)
There are quite a few losing Senators and Congressentities that want to kick his ass right now, considering that if he'd resigned, say, the day before yesterday, he'd have taken the wind out of some of the Democrat's sails.
Re:Sore loser (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, I believe this mainly because the R's didn't set the resignation on Monday - if they had thought it would benefit them, be sure that Rumsfeld would have been gone at least two days ago.
Re:Sore loser (Score:4, Informative)
Good job, Fiddlah. (Score:5, Funny)
You should make t-shirts and sell them through Cafe Press to celebrate.
Re:Sore loser (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Heckuva Job, Rummy.
I'm just glad Slashdot raised the flag on Diebold (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.digg.com/politics/page3
Re:Sore loser (Score:4, Insightful)
You're joking, right? This is cut and run. Rumsfeld is not resigning. He's being scapegoated. You watch: Everybody in the administration is going to be saying "Well, we wanted to do this better, but Rumsfeld talked us into doing it his way..."
Re:Sore loser (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, it would have given backing the to Democrat campaign platform from the White House. That just couldn't be done.
Pardons in Advance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sore loser (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you actually think that GW makes ANY decisions on his own? I assume by "Bush" that you mean the big business controlled Republican machine.
jfs
The army you have... (Score:5, Funny)
- Dubya
Smile for the camera (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, talk about bad timing (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, he may not have specifically offered until today, but he has offered his resignation at least twice in the past
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow, talk about bad timing (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bill Gates?! Defense Secretary? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait, what? Bob Gates?
/Nevermind, then.
Wow, what a day! (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck, at this point, I could just about support Kissinger!
Re:Wow, what a day! (Score:4, Funny)
Bravo sir, bravo.
House of Duras.. Jesus.
Fox news coverage was great (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fox news coverage was great (Score:5, Funny)
That ws just Kelly Ripa getting rid of a stain with her Tide stick.
Re:Fox news coverage was great (Score:5, Funny)
Those were the other White House corespondants.
Good timing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, he was talking about confirming the new nominee (Bob Gates) during the lame-duck period of the existing 55-44-1 Senate.
Re:Good timing (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabine
"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."
The sad thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The sad thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The more sad thing is... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:The sad thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?
Re:The sad thing is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The sad thing is... (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words: Noone cares about them.
Re:The sad thing is... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Suggested Department Name Change (Score:4, Interesting)
In all seriousness, I'm not sure that this new guy is going to be any better. Why does a former CIA man make a better Secretary than..hmm...I dunno....a former GENERAL?
Re:Suggested Department Name Change (Score:5, Interesting)
I preferred the pre-1950-or-so names. DoD was the War Department. Short, honest, and to the point. Homeland Security was Civil Defense. That name was better, too, because it implied that civilians had a part in defending their country against the enemy. "Security" sounds like we're to rely on some sort of external force like the police or Guard to keep us "secure."
-b.
Rumsfeld is a stooge just like Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
The real menace within the DOD is Paul Wolfowitz [wikipedia.org], the architect of all of the USA's global imperialist schemes since at least the Carter years.
Unfortunately, last year someone decided he was of better use as president of the World Bank than Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That man has made more contributions to the world economy and the US than most, and needs to be respected for that.
Then again, trust a Slashdotter to portray one of the most influential men today in neoconservatism as an evil man.
Funny, really. The world and the US needs more people like him.
He should never have been SoD (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we're paying the price. And much more than just troop loss (which is actually quite minimal, compared to other world conflicts, like, say WWII).
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Saddam (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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_a
Sacrificial lamb? (Score:5, Interesting)
I spent more than nine years in the military, most of it infantry - I was a professional bullet stopper. During the first Gulf War we walked across the border with 410,000 troops and are now operating with a bit more than a third of that. The only way to win a war is to win it - otherwise let's get the hell out and quit sacrificing our young men and women in an unwinnable conflict.
I supported the war based on the information that was provided - and that information turned out to be a bit less than accurate. Right now we either need to win the war or get the hell out and quit sacrificing troops when there aren't enough to effect any real change in Iraq.
Right or wrong, we're neck-deep in it now. Let's either win this damn thing or get the hell out of it. We can impeach Bush later if it seems appropriate.
And it seems appropriate.
Re:Sacrificial lamb? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sacrificial lamb? (Score:4, Interesting)
A cheap alternative that they should have pursued from the start would be to flood the country with Iraqi troops & cops. Being a cop or soldier should be the best-paying job that an unskilled young man should be able to get; instead, the pay sucks and the Jihadists even pay more. Spending these millions would save billions. Iraqi security forces should physically occupy every square inch of the country. Even if 20% of them turn out to be infiltrating Jihadists, there's still 80% to gun them down. Penny pinching on security-forces pay is just bonkers.
Based on the information WHO provided? (Score:5, Insightful)
At least three months ahead of the invasion you could have already watched or read reports from a number of leading European, Australian, Canadian, and Asian news sources that the yellowcake documents had been determined by experts to be forged, the aluminum tubes were a mundane (non-nuclear) component, the hydrogen trailers were likely used for weather baloons, the long shed-things were not WMD facilities but used to raise chickens, and that the true report of biological WMD in Iraq was very old with subsequent verification during the Clinton administration that the WMD had been gotten rid of.
It's clear to me that when making a decision in 2003 you didn't try, but instead jerked your knee according to what was "provided" or put directly under your nose. Next time the war drums start beating, I suggest you and all the others who made the same mistake pull your heads out of Corporate America's newsy-tainment ass.
Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war (Score:5, Interesting)
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002 that "the campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."
It's overstating it a little to say that we invaded Iraq on AIPAC's orders. There were other parties who went along, but AIPAC was centrally involved. And what AIPAC wants from Washington, it gets. This despite a huge portion of the American public who opposed the invasion and even despite American Jewish opinion, 52-62% of whom opposed the invasion.
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the giants of international relations (they're like the Freud and Jung of the discipline), published a remarkable paper on the subject last March: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/
Essentially what we've been doing in Iraq is fighting a proxy war on Israel's behalf (on behalf of Likud and other Israeli hawks, that is). It's also why Bush started making noises at Syria recently before things really started to fall apart in Iraq, because they're next on AIPAC's list. Iran comes after that.
Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war (Score:5, Interesting)
Lastly on the score of moral superiority, the demonization of Palestinians as being terrorists is rather ironic, given that Hagannah and other zionists used terrorism to convince the British to leave Palestine. There is a lot of evidence to support the statement that Israel itself was founded through terrorism.
Israel's tactics and behavior are as bloody and brutal as its opponents'. Neither are they supported by a great many Israelis. Recently a number of Israeli officers refused deployment to the occupied territories, and they were dubbed 'refuseniks.' There are many American Jews who also oppose the occupation. So there is no monolithic Israeli or Jewish opinion on the matter; it is a lot more nuanced and complex than Americans are led to believe. And Americans are not aware of that fact because intelligent discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actively suppressed and spun by AIPAC and a score of other allied organizations.
Finally, you sound like a reasonable person, so I ask you to take a look at this map of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and reconsider your assertion that Israel does not try to take its neighbors land: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement [wikipedia.org]. I would further add a quote from David BenGurion, one of the fathers of Israel, "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."
So, it has been an express policy from the outset for zionists to take their neighbors land.
I would note that when Serbs expelled Bosnian muslims from their land in Yugoslavia, it was called "ethnic cleansing." When the Turks expelled Armenians from their land, it was called a "genocide." So Israel's expelling 700,000 Palestinians from their land and colonizing the occupied territories looks quite similar.
So Bush lied (again)? (Score:5, Interesting)
And wasn't it Rumsfeld who said that he had no intention of quitting and that Bush had given him his full support and would decide if and when Rumsfeld should leave? Oh yeah, here it is [voanews.com].
So let's see, first we lie about the invasion of Iraq being tied to the September 11th attacks. Then we lie that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Then we lied that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. Throw in that we lied about not being the world's policeman, that we wouldn't be involved in nation building, that we would hold it to the Saudis in regards to our supply of oil, that the government isn't reading people's emails or searching their homes without warrants, and now this, and you have an entire administration built on lies.
Unfortunately, even with the Democrats taking control of the House, they've already said they don't have the balls to impeach the liar so we're stuck with another two years worth of lies.
yay
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)
How much "strategy" does that take? Particularly with our weapons.
His whole "strategy" is "keep dropping bombs until we drop the right bomb on the right place at the right time". Go check the new sites. Find the LAST time we dropped any bombs on Iraq. Was it a year ago? A month ago? A week ago? A day ago? An hour ago?
Just a quick search shows us bombing them on 27 October 2006.
And yet our troops keep being killed.
Rumsfeld is not "Good at war, bad at peace". Rumsfeld is bad at war and bad at peace. Rumsfeld cannot tell the difference between war and peace. And Rumsfeld doesn't care.
Which war are you talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which war are you talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:5, Insightful)
they are designed to kill
thus the crux of the entire problem.
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is what nobody seems to get nowadays. Does anyone think that had someone else been in charge they would have brought western style democracy to Iraq? Or has anyone woke up to the reality that you can't shove democracy down the throat of people who want Sharia?
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:5, Insightful)
"Bringing western style democracy to Iraq" has never been more than a slogan to win elections. It worked like a charm for 2 in the US, including one presidential.
If Rumsfeld were a competent Defense Secretary, he would have protected the US by winning in Afghanistan and pursuing a counterintel global pursuit of our terrorist enemies. Not created a catastrophic distraction that alienated our allies and our own citizens from each other.
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:5, Insightful)
On behalf of soldiers, sailors, and veterans everywhere: go fuck yourself. I did a much more technical job with cooler toys and better results than anything you've probably seen in your cushy civilian job, then came out and breezed through college. For every 1 stereotypical jackass I knew in the military, there were at least 5 experts in difficult tech fields.
Screw you and your misperceptions. The military hasn't been the way you described it in decades.
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:5, Interesting)
> technical job with cooler toys and better results than anything you've probably seen in your
> cushy civilian job...
Yeah, I'd hire you for a tech job. Sure, that's just the attitude that we like.
Instead of intelligent argument, just lash out, yell and scream, tear off some heads. You sure are a good representative of the military mindset. I think you prove the previous poster's point.
jfs
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:5, Insightful)
To be honest, his strategy for initially winning the war was really damn good. He is honestly a man I would want leading out troops in a traditional war. (minus the body armor stupidity...)
His strategy for war was mediocre at best. Rumsfeld was lucky enough to fight a war against a country 10 times smallert than USA (25 mil vs 300 mil population), with 20 times less money, 50 smaller army and weapons from 1980. In a traditional war you want competent people like Gen. Zinni and Gen. Shinseki, who were fired by Rumsfeld for, well, accurately predicting current disaster in Iraq.
Re: (Score:3)
The second statement doesn't support the first. You may be right that there was a disparity in the composition of forces, but what about the conduct of the "hot war" made it "mediocre?"
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:5, Interesting)
The initial invasion was Rumsfeld's attempt to start a new war doctrine for U.S. forces, and thus leave his stamp on the military. He envisioned a lighter, faster U.S. force that could be deployed cheaper, a modern equivalent of Blitzkrieg. Apparently he forgot that much of the strength of the U.S. military came from logistics and having solid supply lines. As our forces raced up the highway towards Baghdad, they became too stretched out, our supply lines weakened, and the flanks started to come under attack by Iraqi forces. This forced us to stop and regroup and replace the strategy with a more conventional buildup and advance. Basically, the doctrine failed.
The disparity in forces was such that the victory in the conventional war was a guarantee, even with a foolhardy start to things we were easily able to pull it together. Of course, the fact that Rumsfeld was unable to see the flaw in his brilliant new doctrine and the fact that he was unable to see that the end of the "hot" war would only be the beginning are related. The man is incompetent at his job. Always had been, always will be. I would be a better defense secretary. A terrible secretary to be sure, but I'd at least be able to accept the advice of those better versed in war than myself. Rumsfeld thought ideology would trump reality, and he was wrong.
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:4, Insightful)
Mr. Rumsfield and Mr. Bush started a war in Iraq for the wrong reason. What is worse is that in doing so, Rumsfield sought evidence to make his case, as oppossed to making his case around the evidence. Mr. Rumsfields was is, was, and will continue to be a disaster. For you to claim otherwise is absurd.
Good at war? WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
In conclusion, either the man is a complete dolt or has a whole other agenda.
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't recall any declarations of war...
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:5, Insightful)
Not getting over it (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be a silly piece of paper to you, but it's the U.S. Constitution to the rest of us. We have declarations of war for good reasons, like how to know when it's over. But I guess that's the point of undeclared war -- perpetual sacrifice, continuous casualties, being told to "get over it" and just go along. In fact, being told to "get over it" is getting kind of old to me . . .
Re:Not getting over it (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember thinking "Why the fuck would we attack Iraq all of a sudden?". I still don't understand what made that moment in history the "right one" for invading a soverign nation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was right because the climate in the US still allowed the Executive branch to do pretty much whatever it wanted under the guise of protecting us from terrorists. Right because the press, caught up in the wave of patriotism, was happy to copy and paste anything served up to them by the feds right on to their front pages, retractions and apologies about shoddy fact checking and shirking journalistic duty to be printed a couple years down the road on the ba
Condescension (Score:5, Informative)
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:Condescension (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Condescension (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:5, Insightful)
When US did invade and then finally conceded there were no WMDs, the entire world went "told you so" while the US poked their ear drums going "Lalalalalala".
The obvious answer today was as obvious for the rest of the world back then.
But every time an outsider brings it up, it's "you're not with us you're against us" kinda crap. The US citizens were BS-ed out of reason into accepting this early on and now comes the time for the Bush family and their friends to account for what they did.
It's going to be a tough time for Gates to fix the situation. Let's hope his Iran/Contra dealings gave him enough experience...
I can't let you get away with that! (Score:5, Interesting)
The obvious answer now is no different than it was 6.5 years ago.
Repeat after me: There we no Weapons of Mass Destruction! It was a lie then. It remains a blatant lie today.
Second:
"Underserved flak"? This coward who used the blood of other people's children to assert his manhood long after his opportunity had passed, managed to destroy a military force that had already demonstrated its inferiority to the US military machine in 1992. No, sir, he deserves all the flak coming his way and more.
Third:
"Unjustified investigations"? Are you insane? Why did all those people, on both sides die in Iraq? Why is Iraq falling into the guagmire of civil war, just as the critics of his bullshit plan predicted? Where is Osama? Where is the connection between Osama and Saddam?
Oh, sure, you can claim he made the world safe by taking down a dictator. Just try telling that to the Iraq people as they bury more people in a single day than Saddam killed.
Oh, one more thing. Rummy did a GREAT JOB telling the world that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you better get some quick like North Korea, or you'll end up like Iraq. See Iran for more on this subject.
Re:Good at war, bad at peace (Score:5, Insightful)
Only for Americans that were fed lies through their media. For nearly every other country on the planet the war was an unjustified fabrication - no one believed there were any WMDs in Iraq.
And for protesting the American government pushing through the war, other countries were villified. Next time when the entire world tells you that you are wrong, it might be a good idea to listen.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. The Secretary of Defense isn't the one with final say, but he is a member of a small group that advises the President on making the decision. Qutie simply, if the President asks the Secretary of Defense "should we go to war?" it is the SecDef's primary and explicit job to answer - to advise the President. If a Secretary of Defense were to say to his President that the U.S. should or should not go to war,
Participating in what? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the problem is that some Iraqi people have a different agenda from Rumsfeld. Participation is happening but on a whole number of different agendas. Some people are participating in the building of Rumsfeld's vision, and some on completely different visions. Hence the conflict.
Winning a military victory over Saddam's army was only the start, not all of it and I think that's where a lot of people got it wr
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Senate, not House (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I'd guess it happened because the new Senate may end up with a clear Democratic majority.
By letting Rumsfeld go now and appointing a successor immediately, Bush has a very good chance to get his appointee confirmed in the current, Republican-controlled Senate. (The Democrats could stall the confirmation until the end of the current session, but they wouldn't gain from it. It would be bad press, and Bush would just make a recess appointment between sessions anyway.)
Re:PNAC (Score:5, Insightful)
Who knew the New American Century was actually only six years long?
Well, us American voters kinda prefer the Old American Century, with Habeus Corpus and without torture. Don't you ?
Gates and Iran/Contra (Score:5, Informative)
- Walsh Iran / Contra Report [fas.org]
Re:Gates and Iran/Contra (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, good. It always annoyed me that Watergate was overrepresented in the White House. Maybe now the Iran/Contra guys can field a softball team too.
Re:Gates and kennedy (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, then he's a perfect fit for this administration.
Cowards, traitors and murderers the lot of them.
Re:Good news, bad news (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, the CIA has gotten a bad rep of late, however, judge the man for himself, not for what you think of an agency that by its nature doesnt really defend itself from a bad reputation. (Note, I'm a republican, but not a Bush supporter, and am very glad to see Rumsfield gone.)