Ridge, Homeland Security Head, Steps Down 74
WeAz writes "According to MSNBC, Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge has decided to call it quits. 'Ridge, the seventh officer to leave Bush's Cabinet so far, oversaw the most significant government reorganization in 50 years.' Ridge joins Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft as the newest cabinet member to resign from their office."
Rumsfeld resigned? (Score:4, Funny)
Or not....
Can't find anything on news.google.com
Re:Rumsfeld resigned? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Rumsfeld resigned? (Score:3, Funny)
Uh (Score:5, Informative)
The article mentions, as is conventional wisdom, that he'll stay on for a few years to oversee operations in Iraq and transitions to national elections (assuming they ever happen). Of course, they were saying the same thing about Powell before the election.
Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh (Score:5, Funny)
Didn't you know?
Not only do paid subscribers to slashdot get access to articles before other readers,
they get access to them before the rest of the universe.
Consider this one a freebie.
Re:Uh (Score:2)
Re:Uh (Score:1)
clinton [infoplease.com]
bush [infoplease.com]
by your logic, there was big devil behind clinton.
Re:Uh (Score:2)
Who was saying that? Powell has said from the beginning that he was serving only one term.
Rumsfield Didn't Resign (Score:1, Funny)
Maybe this story is from the future.
Cabinet shakeup (Score:3, Insightful)
This kind of thing always goes on between terms. No one wants to get stuck in the same job for 8 years
Re:Cabinet shakeup (Score:2)
Re:Cabinet shakeup (Score:2)
The same 'job' and the same 'career' are not the same thing.
Just thought I'd add some long-term angst to your day.
Re:Cabinet shakeup (Score:2)
Re:Yes, but not quite. (Score:1, Interesting)
Liberals are quick to pounce on these cabinet level resignations as fool-proof evidence of a failed presidency.
Any time I see someone make blanket statements like "liberals do X" or "conservatives do Y," I tune them out. Whatever your intent may be, it comes across like you can't make a argument to support your point without ad hominem and stereotyping.
Next time you're in a political discussion of some sort, try making your points without using either plural term "liberals" or "conservatives." Wher
Thank you for reminding me, but. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thank you for reminding me, but. . . (Score:1, Interesting)
The motivation for using the phrase "liberals do X" was, ironically enough, to appeal to the very crowd you accused me of being a member of. Sometimes, one must work from within the system to garner sufficient respect and attention to be able to breed resistance against the status quo.
Maybe. To me, though, behaving a certain way in political discourse tends to legitimize that manner of discourse. Case-in-point: the brutality and quick-dig nature of nearly all TV and radio political commentary in the
Re:Thank you for reminding me, but. . . (Score:2)
You sound like a Trotskyite. (This is not meant to be perjorative, btw.)
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand your argument at all.
I'm not trying to be glib, but I don't understand:
Maybe I'm dense before coffee? Please help me out.
Re:Yes, but not quite. (Score:5, Insightful)
Could you explain this statement? The only correlation that I see is that recent Presidents have higher number of resignations than those in the past, but that doesn't seem to be your meaning. This change over time probably reflects a changing political culture with the addition of a few cabinet posts as a contributing factor (Eisenhower had 10 Cabinet Secretaries, GWB has 15 in addition to another 6 "cabinet level" positions).
The Bush administration thus far has been notable in it's very low turnover in the Cabinet. In his first term only 2 cabinet positions changed hands, historically quite low. This is probably due to a desire for continuity and a sense of urgency after 9/11. The result is that some cabinet members that would have resigned earlier are taking the changeover as an opportunity to get out.
Another factor in this spate of changes is that W. is impatient to press his political advantage coming out of the election. Unlike most second term presidents who are content to rest on their laurels Bush actually has a farily aggressive policy agenda for his second term and feels the need to hit the ground running. People like Powell that wanted to hang around for a 6 months or more to tie up loose ends are being pushed to get out to clear the decks for their successors. Bush's perception is that he has two years to accomplish anything. After the 2006 midterm elections he will be a true lame duck with no leverage. He wants the team he will be playing with for those two vital years in place immediately... no hanging around unless you intend to stay on through '06. Resign now and do it quickly so approval of the full slate of nominees can be the incoming congresses first order of business.
This could be good... (Score:5, Interesting)
The opposite option: they're getting out while they can. I can't really believe that though. They've already worked through one of the most polarizing administrations in quite a long time (i'm no history buff), they're probably just tired. If the Bush administration is planning on anything more "interesting" (May you live in interesting times. --Confucious) than this whole Iraq thing, well, I'd be impressed.
Re:This could be good... (Score:1)
maybe i'm getting too cynical, but gw consistently is proving that i'm not.
-tinfoil-
i'm very suspicious that they've learned to disseminate crime-liability accross several people. retired govt. officials are usually pardoned here in america (an unfounded impression, anyone got stats?) Why risk your loyal lackey going to jail when you can grey the lines of responsibility accross several people?
-/tinfoil-
Re:This could be good... (Score:2)
What happened after "nine eleven" is now being reconsidered.
"9/11" was the worst thing that had ever happened to Americans.
Re: This could be good... (Score:5, Insightful)
> "9/11" was the worst thing that had ever happened to Americans.
Surely not even in the same league as our civil war.
Re: This could be good... (Score:2)
Yeah, the live TV coverage seen worldwide of that crisis was riveting.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: This could be good... (Score:1)
Waitaminute. How is that different from "wounded" in Fallujah ? Have you seen the guys maimed at the US military hospital in Germany ? This doctor [alternet.org] has. Is there any mainstream news outlet in the US talking about them and the miserable lives they are about to face, with their crippling injuries and their downsized war pensions (thanks Mr bush for "supporting the troops" by cutting into t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This could be good... (Score:2, Interesting)
While it may be the case, as you suggest, that the resignations were motivated by personal satisfaction with future prospects for the country, or fear of future prospects, the possibility that they were in fact motivated by the past performance of the administration, or by their own past performance, should perhaps not be too hastily ruled out.
Re:This could be good... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This could be good... (Score:5, Informative)
Rice. What is there to say about her? From her completely humiliating handling of the incident with the intelligence air craft that was forced to land in China (you'd think that a person with a PhD in political science would have had at least one class on the wolrds oldest and yet newest superpower.) Her inability to read memos. Her fantastically blatent mistakes, overstatements, and outright fabrications. You think the Rocky look-a-like would be headed for the chopping block. But no, without the leather flight helmet she's appearently be mistaken for Kissenger. Pay no attention to the lack of qualifications, and complete inability to serve her post effectively, she's black and can figure skate.
And the ex-governor. He started with nothing and created a monolithic mess that doesn't inform local police departments about anything useful, but did invent a worthless color code that no one ever paid attention too. In fact I don't think his department does anything other than waste taxpayer money.
Powell, of course, has had all of his integrity spent. He'll be the man who saw the rise and fall of the Powell doctrine, and stood by silently when he had only to speak the truth to stop a travesty.
Ridge the Executioner (Score:1, Informative)
It's worth mentioning that prior to his postition of 'protecting' us, as governer of PA Ridge was responsible for over 200 execution orders. He was one of those guys who was just a little to eager to execute the bad guys (who just happen to be dispraportionaly black). Kinda like another prominent politician I can think of.
Re:This could be good... (Score:4, Insightful)
And thus, according to the Geneva Conventions, its okay for our soldiers to bomb mosques, shoot people playing dead, and take no prisoners. They have to.
Re:This could be good... (Score:2)
Re:This could be good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, insurgents everywhere are now using the Geneva Conventions as an _advantage_. That's not how it was intended to work - if anything, the Geneva Conventions outlaw that sort of warfare with the clear demand that both sides wear clearly identifiable uniforms. The Geneva Conventions were intended to protect civilians and prevent horrifying non-conventional weapons from being used. They are NOT supposed to be a shield that your insurgency hides behind.
-Erwos
Re:This could be good... (Score:2)
The Geneva conventions weren't designed for the kind of conflict we're currently caught up in, and I don't think you can dispute that they need revision. That being said, throwing them out completely is insane. The war on terror is as much a war of ideology as anything else, and we can't win that war without solid principles to guide us.
Terrorists and guerillas need popular support- the terrorists are the fish and the people are the sea.
The Geneva Convetion Reflect a Different Time (Score:1)
Any nations that would strictly adhere to the Geneva Convetions are very unlikely to go to war with each other and in modern terms war is only likely to happen where one or both s
The Count? (Score:1, Insightful)
To play Devil's advocate, though, all of the positions that have resigned have been high-stress positions, and many of them didn't plan to work a second term anyway. Who knows.
- dshaw
Re:The Count? (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, the CIA [npr.org] is a different story...
Re:The Count? (Score:2)
No, not Rumsfeld! (Score:2)
Anyway, for you conspiracy theorists out there, maybe Ridge left because he wanted to get higher up in the order of succession (you can't get much lower than the last cabinet position created)...
Re: (Score:1)
Re:No, not Rumsfeld! (Score:2)
zerg (Score:2)
I know Slashdot is as reputable as Fox News, but come on guys, it's not like the submitter included gratuitous Anti-Microsoft or Anti-SCO (same thing?!) stuff...
Re:zerg (Score:4, Funny)
Steve Ballmer and Darl McBride have both retired from their positions and eloped to Massachusetts where their marriage would be legal.
Actually, Donald Rumsfeld hasn't resigned.
And they went to Norway.
There will not be a draft (Score:1, Insightful)
That aside, imagine how different the public's reaction to these agressive wars would be if the army was drafted instead of all volunteer. Remember Vietnam? Do you think th
Re:Quit: NOT! (Score:1)
Not likely. All the upper echelon of the millitary remebers the draft. Believe me when I say they are much happier with a voluteer force. Any commander would rather lead a group of motivated volunteers than a group of unmotivated draftees. If they start having problems getting enough they will increase the education incentives and signing bonuses.
Re:Quit: NOT! (Score:2)
Re:Quit: NOT! (Score:2)
Re:Quit: NOT! (Score:2)
Is it just me . . . (Score:1)
Homeland Security (Score:1)
That being said, while sometimes cabinet shakedowns are good, I'd argue that Bush is just using this to reinforce his neo-con philsophy even more so than he did before. Witness the replacement of Ashcroft with somebody
Re: (Score:1)