So much for an administration that claims they don’t listen to public polls. The Democrats just swept the House, Senate and Governorships, and the Iraq mess was probably the number 1 factor. Then the next day, the Sec. of Defense steps down. Coincidence?
Wasn’t it just about a week ago, that Bush said Rumsfeld would stay for the rest of his term?
How come Bush’s not Staying The Course?
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
How come Bush’s not Staying The Course?[/quote]
They’re not using that phrase any more. I think they’ve found it’s safer to “cut and run” now that the dems are in power.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
So much for an administration that claims they don’t listen to public polls. The Democrats just swept the House, Senate and Governorships, and the Iraq mess was probably the number 1 factor. Then the next day, the Sec. of Defense steps down. Coincidence?
Wasn’t it just about a week ago, that Bush said Rumsfeld would stay for the rest of his term?
How come Bush’s not Staying The Course?[/quote]
Rumsfeld is resigning. There is a difference between stepping down and being fired.
I for one welcome the change. Time to look up info on Robert Gates, who Bush is planning to nominate as Rummy’s replacement.
[quote]Ren wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
So much for an administration that claims they don’t listen to public polls. The Democrats just swept the House, Senate and Governorships, and the Iraq mess was probably the number 1 factor. Then the next day, the Sec. of Defense steps down. Coincidence?
Wasn’t it just about a week ago, that Bush said Rumsfeld would stay for the rest of his term?
How come Bush’s not Staying The Course?
Rumsfeld is resigning. There is a difference between stepping down and being fired.
I for one welcome the change. Time to look up info on Robert Gates, who Bush is planning to nominate as Rummy’s replacement.[/quote]
Bush interviewed Robert Gates for the job the week before the midterm election.
Rumsfeld was fired.
[quote]Ren wrote:
Rumsfeld is resigning. There is a difference between stepping down and being fired.
[/quote]
Rumsfeld has previously said that he stayed on the job at the President’s request.
Goodbye, cocksmoker!
Nobody’s gonna miss your “safe” course.
-S
Cut to:
Republican losers all over the country: “This is information we could have used YESTERDAY!!”
Oh, and he didn’t get fired. He had to step down so he could get fitted for his Medal o’ Freedom. Haters.
I, for one, won’t miss him and I think he should have stepped down a while ago. That said, I don’t hate the guy, but he deserves to go.
My guess is that Bush did not want to make Rumsfeld’s departure a campaign issue leading up to this election, so they sat on it for a while. But honestly, after going on this long backing Rumsfeld, there is no good time to do it - post-election will give the Dems plenty to talk about as they go forward with the majority.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Ren wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
So much for an administration that claims they don’t listen to public polls. The Democrats just swept the House, Senate and Governorships, and the Iraq mess was probably the number 1 factor. Then the next day, the Sec. of Defense steps down. Coincidence?
Wasn’t it just about a week ago, that Bush said Rumsfeld would stay for the rest of his term?
How come Bush’s not Staying The Course?
Rumsfeld is resigning. There is a difference between stepping down and being fired.
I for one welcome the change. Time to look up info on Robert Gates, who Bush is planning to nominate as Rummy’s replacement.
Bush interviewed Robert Gates for the job the week before the midterm election.
Rumsfeld was fired.[/quote]
So Bush lied when he said Rumsfeld was staying on for the rest of his term then?
This is way bigger news than the Democratic sweep. I have no preference if we just nuke the bad guys or leave, but for chrissake, let’s do something besides getting our asses shot off.
Rumsfeld was incompetent for years, even when he ran G.D. Searel, the drug company (who, by the way, we can thank for Nutrasweet)
From Austin Bay – I agree with points 1 and 3 – 2 is interesting speculation…
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1520
A few thoughts:
(1) I think the resignation wasn?t entirely contingent on the election? thought the Democratic win made Rumsfeld resignation a certainty. Robert Gates (currently president of Texas A&M University) has worked with James Baker on the “War on Terror” strategy evaluation. The Baker “bi-partisan” political fall-back position for prosecuting the war was already in the works.
(2) One of the very smart young officers I know suggests the resignation is political prep for prosecuting the war even more vociferously. I think he?s on to something.
(3) I am very skeptical of Nancy Pelosi’s “one hundred hours” promise. Her one hundred hours (that’s one hundred days on blog time) will be sound and fury and media sensation, but not much beyond that. Still, Rumsfeld is a scalp. Another one of the very smart troops says that should Pelosi-led investigations start in earnest, Rumsfeld is already two-months gone. A nice tactical political move, if the troop’s hunch is correct.
[quote]Ren wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Ren wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
So much for an administration that claims they don’t listen to public polls. The Democrats just swept the House, Senate and Governorships, and the Iraq mess was probably the number 1 factor. Then the next day, the Sec. of Defense steps down. Coincidence?
Wasn’t it just about a week ago, that Bush said Rumsfeld would stay for the rest of his term?
How come Bush’s not Staying The Course?
Rumsfeld is resigning. There is a difference between stepping down and being fired.
I for one welcome the change. Time to look up info on Robert Gates, who Bush is planning to nominate as Rummy’s replacement.
Bush interviewed Robert Gates for the job the week before the midterm election.
Rumsfeld was fired.
So Bush lied when he said Rumsfeld was staying on for the rest of his term then?[/quote]
Bush doesn’t lie; he merely makes statements based on the latest available intel. The intel on Monday said Rummy would stay; the intel on Wednesday said Rummy will play spoiled little boy, took his ball, and went home to make up some excuses to put on the Dems.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
(2) One of the very smart young officers I know suggests the resignation is political prep for prosecuting the war even more vociferously. I think he?s on to something.[/quote]
Maybe I learned the wrong definition, but I hope by vociferously the author meant viciously. Assuming ‘Shock and Awe’ is more in line with the definition of vociferous, I don’t want any more of that.
Edit: Upon rereading, I realize I misunderstood who was doing what kind of prosecuting. If they mean Rummy’s successor is prosecuting the war, my statement stands. If they mean the Dems prosecuting the Bush Admin., aren’t the Dems already doing that?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
From Austin Bay – I agree with points 1 and 3 – 2 is interesting speculation…
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1520
[/quote]
Well he’s not that astute if he thinks that Connecticut elected Lieberman based on his Iraq position. Excuse me, but that contradicts the conventional wisdom that the election nationwide was a referendum on Iraq (anger about Iraq). If that’s true then Connecticut wouldn’t be any different.
Fact is that Lieberman won because Lamont has no experience, and Lieberman has a liberal/moderate track record on most issues, and that’s what Democrats want.
Off topic but deserves mention.
Anyway, looks like Rumsfeld’s replacement is yet another holdover from the Iran Contra scandal. Wow, what a deep bench you guys have to draw from.
[quote]rbnlaw wrote:
Bush doesn’t lie; he merely makes statements based on the latest available intel. The intel on Monday said Rummy would stay; the intel on Wednesday said Rummy will play spoiled little boy, took his ball, and went home to make up some excuses to put on the Dems.[/quote]
Agreed, an attorney interviewing for a jury asked my grandfather if he’d lived in town for his entire life. My grandpa replied, “I dunno, I’m not dead yet.” You could say the pres. lied, but IMO, that makes you look like a dumbass.
[quote]rbnlaw wrote:
Bush doesn’t lie; he merely makes statements based on the latest available intel. The intel on Monday said Rummy would stay; the intel on Wednesday said Rummy will play spoiled little boy, took his ball, and went home to make up some excuses to put on the Dems.[/quote]
That is a great answer!
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
From Austin Bay – I agree with points 1 and 3 – 2 is interesting speculation…
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1520
Well he’s not that astute if he thinks that Connecticut elected Lieberman based on his Iraq position. Excuse me, but that contradicts the conventional wisdom that the election nationwide was a referendum on Iraq (anger about Iraq). If that’s true then Connecticut wouldn’t be any different.
Fact is that Lieberman won because Lamont has no experience, and Lieberman has a liberal/moderate track record on most issues, and that’s what Democrats want.[/quote]
And further, IIRC the Rhode Island race went completely counter to that line of thought as well (an anti-war Republican incumbent was ousted).
On Nov. 4, 2006, in an unprecedented editorial, the Military Times (Marine Corps Times, Navy Times, etc) called for Rumsfeld to step down.
[b]
Time for Rumsfeld to go
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ?
?So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion … it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.?
That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.
But until recently, the ?hard bruising? truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.
One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: ?mission accomplished,? the insurgency is ?in its last throes,? and ?back off,? we know what we?re doing, are a few choice examples.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war?s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: ?I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I?ve seen it … and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.?
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on ?critical? and has been sliding toward ?chaos? for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.
But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.
For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don?t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.
Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.
And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he?ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation?s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers? deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.[/b]
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
On Nov. 4, 2006, in an unprecedented editorial, the Military Times (Marine Corps Times, Navy Times, etc) called for Rumsfeld to step down.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.[/b][/quote]
As someone who had read the Marine Corps Times for 4 years straight I put no reliablity in anything that comes out of that “newspaper”. The writing is atrocious and the people are morons. That said, I just could never NOT buy it. The cover story always seemed so cool to an 18-22 year old me. Then you discover that you’ve learned nothing.
That said, I really dislike how the war is going though I am a large proponent of it. Not having Rumsfeld is going to make things worse. There are an extra thousand men alive today thanks to doctrines he pressed that made the bulky and lethargic army a lighter and more agile force. This saved MANY lives during the push. Rummy is a patriot and a man of character. I’m glad to see him resign to avoid the democratic witch hunt that had him first on the hit list.
Also, for those of you that think this is a good move; consider his replacement. At a time when we are crying about poor treatment of prisoners, torture and secret prisons we remove Rummy and put in a guy that headed the CIA?! WTF?! I’m sure the CIA is completely devoid of shady characters.
If Rummy had to go, we should have iced off Schwartzkoff or something. He knows how to kick a little ass and has something of a record in the area. We at least could have put a general or a military historian in the slot. (Victor Davis Hanson comes to mind)
mike