CONFIRMED: Donald Rumsfeld to Resign

[OBJRA10]

It is about time.

not much info on the wires yet - it's just coming across right now.

I'm as conservative as any, but this is long overdue.

[BRussell]

I really don't get what this means. How did the Congressional elections have any bearing on this? It's not like he lost election or something. Was this all just a bluff to get through the election - we're going to stay the course no matter what! Until a day after the election. And it's not like this means anything. This was Bush's policy.

I can think of two other people in the executive branch who could resign, making way for President Pelosi. ;)

Actually, I THINK I GET IT! They'll make Lieberman DefSec, and since CT has a Republican governor, he'll appoint a Republican, and they'll take back the Senate!

[Gilsch]

What a pussy. But most of us always knew that. I should've bought stock in paper shredding machine manufacturers. Those things are cranking up non-stop since last night.

Shit, I was also looking forward to the Rumsfeld "analysis" of the elections.

[Carson O'Genic]

6 years too late.

[OBJRA10]

I assume you are referring to policital commentators position that this was a result of the election, because I didn't say that.

It has obviously been in the works because Bush is about to announce his replacement. I'm sure that they thought they had a chance to keep some of the seats they lost, and they couldn't give the impression that they were wrong.

[southside grabowski]

Robert Gates, an Aggie, in charge now!

[Powerdoc]

Just heared this new on the radio.
Unfortunately his foreign policy (Iraq) was a failure and he paid for that. Now USA is in a new quagmire : thanks Rumsfield but also thank Bush.

[OBJRA10]

Link to the bio (http://www.tamu.edu/president/biography.html) of Dr. Robert Gates, President of Texas A&M

[OBJRA10]

Bush just admitted that he had been talking to Gates about the position since Sunday

[MarcUK]

Robert Gates, an Aggie, in charge now!

whats an aggie?

[southside grabowski]

The opposite of a Teasip

[OBJRA10]

whats an aggie?


Texas A&M University

Gates is the president there.

[MacRR]

It may be a proverbial preliminary olive branch from the administration considering Dems have control of the house- and most likely the senate. It would certainly spare the inevitable battle to oust him by the Dems. It's no secret the Dems had him in their sights.

[BRussell]

You know, this ticks me off a bit. This is something they obviously knew about but intentionally withheld prior to the election.

[OBJRA10]

Of course they knew about it. And of course they intentionally withheld it before the election. So what - they had no obligation to do it before the election.

In fact, the very idea of campaigning is the art of withholding information from people so that they will vote for you!

[MarcUK]

Is it possible that Bush could resign early and call a new presidential election - like next week? or would leadership pass to second in command in the party?

[OBJRA10]

If Bush resigns, Cheney becomes president, and he would appoint a new vice president, who would then need the consent of the House of Representatives - now controlled by the Democrats.

It's not going to happen.

[OBJRA10]

Now that we have the majority-- can we actually shoot down this Gates guy?

(if it's reasonable to...)

It's not clear when confirmation hearings will begin. Also, it's still not clear who will control the Senate (which is where he would be confirmed).

Better question - do you think we don't actually need a SecDef? Or do you just want to shoot down any nominee? Do you know anything about him that would lead you to want to "shoot down this guy," other than the fact that he was nominated by Bush?

[OBJRA10]

Resignations are dealt with in the amendment about the order of presidential succession.

Speaker Pelosi is third in line, baby!


Which, aside from the fact that it's the ONLY way she'd ever become president, will never happen.

[MarcUK]

Impeach! Impeach!

[southside grabowski]

Is it possible that Bush could resign early and call a new presidential election - like next week? or would leadership pass to second in command in the party?


No. Won't happen.

[Carson O'Genic]

Is it possible that Bush could resign early and call a new presidential election - like next week? or would leadership pass to second in command in the party?


Doesn't happen that way over here, unless it is something on par with Watergate. We're stuck with Bush for two more years, but if you listen you can hear the quacking....

[Carson O'Genic]

In regards to Pelosi becoming Prez...


Well if GW chokes on a pretzel and then, upon hearing the news, Cheney chokes on a bone of the puppy he is eating for breakfast, then .....it could happen.

[BRussell]

Of course they knew about it. And of course they intentionally withheld it before the election. So what - they had no obligation to do it before the election.

In fact, the very idea of campaigning is the art of withholding information from people so that they will vote for you! So in other words, the dishonesty among these guys is just so common that it doesn't even seem out of place any more.

[thuh Freak]

I was tempted to make a betting thread to see how long he'd last before i heard this. Didn't bush recently say that he wanted the secretary to stick it out for the remainder of the term.

[SDW2001]

Wow. I guess they knew he was going to be investigated.

Bush won't resign and won't be impeached. That would be absolutely stupid for the Dems. Secondly, there's no case for impeachment. You'd need clear evidence Bush lied...actually you'd need more than that...you'd need evidence of criminal lying...such as lying under oath or outrightly fabricating intel.

I think it's time for Rummy to go too. I think he did an overall good job, but made too many mistake in Iraq after the invasion.

[running with scissors]

now if would could just get his boss to step down as well.

[jimmac]

In regards to Pelosi becoming Prez...


Well if GW chokes on a pretzel and then, upon hearing the news, Cheney chokes on a bone of the puppy he is eating for breakfast, then .....it could happen.

I'm sorry but that was funny!:lol:

[jimmac]

Wow. I guess they knew he was going to be investigated.

Bush won't resign and won't be impeached. That would be absolutely stupid for the Dems. Secondly, there's no case for impeachment. You'd need clear evidence Bush lied...actually you'd need more than that...you'd need evidence of criminal lying...such as lying under oath or outrightly fabricating intel.

I think it's time for Rummy to go too. I think he did an overall good job, but made too many mistake in Iraq after the invasion.


I do think however there will be a lot of pulling up of old boards and looking to see what kind of things we'll find underneath!;)

Ps. And you never know what that might lead to.......

[jimmac]

I was tempted to make a betting thread to see how long he'd last before i heard this. Didn't bush recently say that he wanted the secretary to stick it out for the remainder of the term.


Yup!;)

[OBJRA10]

So in other words, the dishonesty among these guys is just so common that it doesn't even seem out of place any more.


First of all, the honest answer to your question is - yes.

However, that's not what I said, and you're spinning.

If a Senator was having an affair and was planning on leaving his wife, but waited until after an election to announce it, would that be dishonest?

Tell the truth always, but don't always be telling it.

[SDW2001]

I do think however there will be a lot of pulling up of old boards and looking to see what kind of things we'll find underneath!;)

Ps. And you never know what that might lead to.......

See, there you go again. It's like you're hoping for it. Impeachment would be a disaster right now for this country...a distraction at a critical time in the WOT.

Secondly, there really is not a case to impeach Bush, no matter how much anyone hates him. The President can only be impeached for high crimes and mismdemeanors. Even IF it was proven that he lied to the country about Iraq (which it has not been), that's not a crime under our laws. I'm not even sure lying to Congress is a crime as long as you're not under oath. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending those actions if they were to occur, I'm just laying out the facts as I see them. It's the same as when Clinton lied right to the camera. He wasn't impeached for that. Now, I guess if there was an investigation and Bush tried to obstruct justice or something, that would be different. Maybe that's what the Dems will try to do.

[BRussell]

Bush deserves impeachment for torture and for ignoring the FISA laws. If this was 1800, he'd be out for such things. However, the simple fact is that it would probably be bad politically for Democrats, and they know it. Clinton was never more popular than when Republicans were impeaching him.

[Gilsch]

I think it's time for Rummy to go too. I think he did an overall good job, but made too many mistake in Iraq after the invasion. How the fuck is bungling a war that has cost US almost 3,000 of our soldiers' lives, possibly hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and in excess of half a trillion dollars and counting, doing an overall good job???? :no: :no:

I'd make that absurdly pathetic statement my new signature if it wasn't so bloody sad. :mad:

[thuh Freak]

Bush deserves impeachment for torture and for ignoring the FISA laws. If this was 1800, he'd be out for such things. However, the simple fact is that it would probably be bad politically for Democrats, and they know it. Clinton was never more popular than when Republicans were impeaching him.

I agree on torture and fisa. Throw in making up legal phrases like "enemy combatant," and denying habeas corpus. And the law that pardoned the interogators or whatever that was.

I'm troubled by Pelosi's pledge to not impeach. In my far out hope of D control of the congress, it was my hope that Bush would be impeached. I wonder if the dems can present a good enough case on the issues. we gotta show the R's its not a game of "tag: you're impeached" back and forth between presidents. this is about possible criminal acts committed by the president or his office, and more details and more investigations are necessary. considering we have a D house, possible D senate, and an R veto, we can't expect much in terms of laws being passed. atleast we can give the critters some investigations to work on.

[Gilsch]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

[Hassan i Sabbah]

He only went there for a photo-op.

[Frank777]

It would be silly to impeach.

Today begins the campaign for the 2008 Presidential election. Unless the Democrats want all their candidates to be answering impeachment-related inquiries for the first year of their "takeover" of Congress, they won't go for it.

[SDW2001]

Bush deserves impeachment for torture and for ignoring the FISA laws. If this was 1800, he'd be out for such things. However, the simple fact is that it would probably be bad politically for Democrats, and they know it. Clinton was never more popular than when Republicans were impeaching him.

I disagree. The kind of surveilance we are conducting doesn't fall under FISA. You'd have a tough time with that. Secondly, you'd have to prove we "torture." Even if you did, what laws did he violate?

[giant]

You know, this ticks me off a bit. This is something they obviously knew about but intentionally withheld prior to the election.
Of course they knew about it. And of course they intentionally withheld it before the election. So what - they had no obligation to do it before the election.

In fact, the very idea of campaigning is the art of withholding information from people so that they will vote for you!
It's a little worse than withholding information. Bush has now admitted that he deliberately lied about it to reporters last week because the election was coming up.

[SDW2001]

How the fuck is bungling a war that has cost US almost 3,000 of our soldiers' lives, possibly hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and in excess of half a trillion dollars and counting, doing an overall good job???? :no: :no:

I'd make that absurdly pathetic statement my new signature if it wasn't so bloody sad. :mad:

He's made mistakes. If it were me, I'd have fired him after I realized we didn't have enough troops and that his "lighter, quicker" war wasn't working for occupation. But overall, he's done a good job reforming the military leadership and preparing for 21st century force, which is what he set out to do. There are a lot of parts to his job that we simply don't see and you can't just judge im on Iraq. Though I would have fired him, I still think it can be said that his overall job performance was good.

I think you're misplacing a lot of your anger. Rumsfeld didn't make the decision to go in, Bush did. Secondly, 3,000 casualties is not a lot for a three year occupation. I'm not demeaning the sacrifice of those that have died, I'm just saying historically speaking it's not a lot. I don't know that you can put all that on Rumsfeld's actions either. Maybe a portion of it. Same goes for the cost. It's actually closer to 300 billion, which is of course still very high. I don't know that you can blame the cost on him directly. Maybe he takes some of the blame. At least as much goes to Bush.

[SDW2001]

It's a little worse than withholding information. Bush has now admitted that he deliberately lied about it to reporters last week because the election was coming up.

What? Or maybe it just happened? We don't know.

[giant]

What? Or maybe it just happened? We don't know.
Read much?
Bush has now admitted
So are you saying he's lying now about lying last week?

[giant]

From boing boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/08/rumsfeld_resignation.html)

http://i14.tinypic.com/3zbyttu.jpg

[Gilsch]

I think you're misplacing a lot of your anger. Rumsfeld didn't make the decision to go in, Bush did. Secondly, 3,000 casualties is not a lot for a three year occupation. I'm not demeaning the sacrifice of those that have died, I'm just saying historically speaking it's not a lot. I don't know that you can put all that on Rumsfeld's actions either. Maybe a portion of it. Same goes for the cost. It's actually closer to 300 billion, which is of course still very high. I don't know that you can blame the cost on him directly. Maybe he takes some of the blame. At least as much goes to Bush. No matter how much of the Iraq disaster can be directly attributed to Rumsfeld, the mess is so huge that unless you're a fan of his or support him as part of an agenda of the ones you support, saying he did an "overall good job" is ridiculous to say the least.

A quick correction to your trying to minimize the human cost of this war by failing to even fucking acknowledge the Iraqis: almost 3,000 American soldiers have died. For your information, the word casualties also means wounded. More than 30,000 Americans have been wounded. Many of them crippled for life. Possibly hundreds of thousands Iraqis have been killed and wounded. Most a direct result of poor (inexistent) post invasion planning. How the hell can this possibly be an "overall good job"??:no:

[iPoster]

:D

Seriously though, it's way past time for him to go! At least now our servicemen and women have a chance for a chain of command they can look up to...at least to the SECDEF level!

[OBJRA10]

It's a little worse than withholding information. Bush has now admitted that he deliberately lied about it to reporters last week because the election was coming up.

Actually, I watched the press conference. He didn't "admit that he deliberately lied." What he said was that the decision hadn't been made.

I do, however, agree with you that his explaination was a little lame - he hadn't "talked to Gates," and hadn't had "the final conversation" with Rumsfeld, but it wasn't at all unreasonable to hold his tongue on the matter since nothing was finalized.

Anyway - who cares. Are we really that desperate to find things wrong with this guy? What the hell difference does it make?

[addabox]

From boing boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/08/rumsfeld_resignation.html)

http://i14.tinypic.com/3zbyttu.jpg

That's hilarious.

[addabox]

Now here's a thought: I wonder if Bush outsmarted himself (not terribly difficult, but still) by withholding the announcement till after the election.

A lot of the people voting were pissed that there appears to be no plan in Iraq and no plan to change course. Removing Rummy might have been just enough to make a few people go "hmmm, maybe Bush is willing to start facing reality and getting something done".

And a few people is all it was going to take, at least for control of the Senate.

[giant]

Actually, I watched the press conference. He didn't "admit that he deliberately lied." What he said was that the decision hadn't been made.
Then your memory is faulty.
REPORTER: Last week you told us Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now, and how much does it have to do with the election results?

BUSH: You and Hunt and Keil came into the Oval Office and asked me to question one week before the campaign. Basically, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? The reason why is I did not want to inject a major decision in the final days of the campaign. The only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to give you that answer.

[thuh Freak]

I disagree. The kind of surveilance we are conducting doesn't fall under FISA.

If it doesn't fall under FISA, what law(s) does it fall under?

[addabox]

If it doesn't fall under FISA, what law(s) does it fall under?

Why, the "Commander-in-Chief Must Be Given Free Reign To Do Whatever He Sees Fit To Keep The Terrorists From Killing Us All Emergency Congressional Abandonment Of All Oversight And Constitutional Duties" resolution of 9/11, of course.

[MacRR]

He's made mistakes. If it were me, I'd have fired him after I realized we didn't have enough troops and that his "lighter, quicker" war wasn't working for occupation. But overall, he's done a good job reforming the military leadership and preparing for 21st century force, which is what he set out to do. There are a lot of parts to his job that we simply don't see and you can't just judge im on Iraq. Though I would have fired him, I still think it can be said that his overall job performance was good.

I think you're misplacing a lot of your anger. Rumsfeld didn't make the decision to go in, Bush did. Secondly, 3,000 casualties is not a lot for a three year occupation. I'm not demeaning the sacrifice of those that have died, I'm just saying historically speaking it's not a lot. I don't know that you can put all that on Rumsfeld's actions either. Maybe a portion of it. Same goes for the cost. It's actually closer to 300 billion, which is of course still very high. I don't know that you can blame the cost on him directly. Maybe he takes some of the blame. At least as much goes to Bush.
I highly suggest you seek out and read the many stories about the soldiers who've died or were seriously wounded, and their families' struggles and let me know if you believe it's acceptable given the utter failure in planning and execution of a major war just because he stayed on track with some minor management of pentagon daily operations. Too bad he couldn't get on track to properly supply the troops while he was busy making sure the electricity bill was paid.

Seriously- you'd have to really bend over backwards and fold the blinders over your eyes to give Rummy credit for anything. A ten year old playing Command and Conquer would have done a better job of strategizing a war in Iraq.

[rageous]

From boing boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/08/rumsfeld_resignation.html)

http://i14.tinypic.com/3zbyttu.jpg


AHAHHAAH that's priceless

[SDW2001]

No matter how much of the Iraq disaster can be directly attributed to Rumsfeld, the mess is so huge that unless you're a fan of his or support him as part of an agenda of the ones you support, saying he did an "overall good job" is ridiculous to say the least.

A quick correction to your trying to minimize the human cost of this war by failing to even fucking acknowledge the Iraqis: almost 3,000 American soldiers have died. For your information, the word casualties also means wounded. More than 30,000 Americans have been wounded. Many of them crippled for life. Possibly hundreds of thousands Iraqis have been killed and wounded. Most a direct result of poor (inexistent) post invasion planning. How the hell can this possibly be an "overall good job"??:no:

I don't think you have any clue what a really brutal war looks like. I'm not minimizing anything. I'm just saying.....historically it's not terrible at all. And I didn't realize we were talking about Iraqis. That's another subject that I don't think has much to do with Rumsfeld directly.

I liked Rumsfeld's personality and way of dealing with press. It certainly isn't about some "agenda" I share, though I realize you're probably in love with the term "neocon" and that's what you're alluding to. As I said, he made mistakes and I've pointed out what I feel those were. I still feel that in the final analysis, he was a good SoD. Feel free to disagree and nearly have a coronary.

[OBJRA10]

Then your memory is faulty.

My memory is fine. Let's look at a little more of the press conference.

Q Mr. President, thank you. Can I just start by asking you to clarify, sir, if, in your meeting with Steve and Terry and Dick, did you know at that point --

THE PRESIDENT: I did not.

Q -- you would be making a change on Secretary Rumsfeld?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I did not. And the reason I didn't know is because I hadn't visited with his replacement -- potential replacement.

Q But you knew he would be leaving, just not who would replace him?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I didn't know that at the time.

Q Okay. May I ask you about Nancy Pelosi --

THE PRESIDENT: The other thing I did know, as well, is that that kind of question, a wise question by a seasoned reporter, is the kind of thing that causes one to either inject major military decisions at the end of a campaign, or not. And I have made the decision that I wasn't going to be talking about hypothetical troop levels or changes in command structure coming down the stretch.

And I'll tell you why I made that decision. I made that decision because I think it sends a bad signal to our troops if they think the Commander-in-Chief is constantly adjusting tactics and decisions based upon politics. And I think it's important in a time of war that, to the extent possible, we leave politics out of the major decisions being made. And it was the right decision to make, by the way.

And secondly, I hadn't visited with Bob Gates. I told you I visited with him last Sunday in Crawford. You can't replace somebody until you know you got somebody to replace him with. And finally, I hadn't had my last conversation with Secretary Rumsfeld, which I had yesterday.

[FormerLurker]

And I'll tell you why I made that decision. I made that decision because I think it sends a bad signal to our troops if they think the Commander-in-Chief is constantly adjusting tactics and decisions based upon politics. And I think it's important in a time of war that, to the extent possible, we leave politics out of the major decisions being made. And it was the right decision to make, by the way

Gotcha.

It was a "bad signal" to send two weeks ago.

But, it's "the right decision to make, by the way" now.

Because "we leave politics out of the major decisions being made."

:lol:

[FormerLurker]

And secondly, I hadn't visited with Bob Gates. I told you I visited with him last Sunday in Crawford. You can't replace somebody until you know you got somebody to replace him with. And finally, I hadn't had my last conversation with Secretary Rumsfeld, which I had yesterday.
OK, so what would have been truthful last week would have been "I haven't yet found a replacement for Sec. Rumsfeld"

Instead of "Rumsfeld will be with me till the end of my term"

Still sounds to me like he lied - too bad he wasn't under oath at the time, so we could now impeach him.

[Gilsch]

I don't think you have any clue what a really brutal war looks like. I'm not minimizing anything. I'm just saying.....historically it's not terrible at all. And I didn't realize we were talking about Iraqis. That's another subject that I don't think has much to do with Rumsfeld directly. :lol: Nice backtpedaling there. Don't play dumb. What I said was perfectly clear. The gravity of the Iraq situation is a direct consequence of your hero "Rummy's" mismanagement of the war. American and Iraqi lives included. You for some f-ed up reason seemed to forget about the Iraqis. And the American wounded. Judging by the comments from others, it appears you're actually a callous individual or a charlatan. Or both. And you have no clue what a brutal war looks like either. I'd probably end up in combat sooner than you ever would. I liked Rumsfeld's personality and way of dealing with press. It certainly isn't about some "agenda" I share, though I realize you're probably in love with the term "neocon" and that's what you're alluding to. As I said, he made mistakes and I've pointed out what I feel those were. I still feel that in the final analysis, he was a good SoD. Feel free to disagree and nearly have a coronary. His way of dealing with the press? LMAO. "We know where the weapons are.....north, east, south and west of Baghdad...". Brilliant! Don't worry about my health. I'm not the one going ballistic feeling the need to call others names when the feeling of impotence for not being able to keep up in a discussion overwhelms me. ;) Good night and good luck.

[MacRR]

I don't think you have any clue what a really brutal war looks like. I'm not minimizing anything. I'm just saying.....historically it's not terrible at all. And I didn't realize we were talking about Iraqis. That's another subject that I don't think has much to do with Rumsfeld directly.

I liked Rumsfeld's personality and way of dealing with press. It certainly isn't about some "agenda" I share, though I realize you're probably in love with the term "neocon" and that's what you're alluding to. As I said, he made mistakes and I've pointed out what I feel those were. I still feel that in the final analysis, he was a good SoD. Feel free to disagree and nearly have a coronary.
And your personal experience with a war, much less a brutal one is......

[giant]

My memory is fine.
Well, then maybe it's your reading since he says the same thing in the quote you posted. He was actively looking to replace rumsfeld and had even decided on who he was going to ask to be rumsfeld's replacement when he said to reporters last wednesday that he wanted rumsfeld to stay on to the end of his term and praised the job he was doing.

Read it again if you have to. I'll even make the transcript more precise for you. Watch the video (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/plugins/flvplayer.swf?file=http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/flv/2006/11/bushlies.320.240.flv&autoStart=false). He's explicitly and unequivocally stating that he lied about rumsfeld's future with the administration because the elections were coming up. He even gives reasons for /why/ he did it.
REPORTER: Last week you told us Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now, and how much does it have to do with the election results?

BUSH: You and Hunt and Kyle came into the Oval Office and you asked ... Hunt asked me the question one week before the campaign. And basically, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? And my answer was no, they are going to stay on. And the reason why is I did not want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of the campaign. So the only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to give you that answer. [Bush chuckles]
The issue isn't whether Bush lied about it, it's whether it was playing politics or avoiding playing politics. Bush is claiming the latter.

[SDW2001]

:lol: Nice backtpedaling there. Don't play dumb. What I said was perfectly clear. The gravity of the Iraq situation is a direct consequence of your hero "Rummy's" mismanagement of the war. American and Iraqi lives included. You for some f-ed up reason seemed to forget about the Iraqis. And the American wounded. Judging by the comments from others, it appears you're actually a callous individual or a charlatan. Or both. And you have no clue what a brutal war looks like either. I'd probably end up in combat sooner than you ever would. His way of dealing with the press? LMAO. "We know where the weapons are.....north, east, south and west of Baghdad...". Brilliant! Don't worry about my health. I'm not the one going ballistic feeling the need to call others names when the feeling of impotence for not being able to keep up in a discussion overwhelms me. ;) Good night and good luck.


Gilsch,

On point one, I'm merely saying that they are two different issues. I also think that linking Rumsfeld's "management" of the war is tough to do. Getting a hard number for Iraqi casualties is very difficult. Some say 10,000. Some say 30. Some say 100. Some say 300. It's all over the map. In any case, unless you're saying that there would have been less colleratal damage with a different SoD, I don't see where you are going. Granted, it has gone on longer which causes more casualties. Having more troops would have arguable saved more lives as well. I just think it's a different topic.

I do know what a brutal war "looks like." How about 50,000 dead Americans? or 65,000? Or 200,000 (600,000 wounded) Those were three brutal wars: Korea, Vietnam and WWII. We've lost,on average, one person a day in this war. At the heigh of Vietnam, we were losing 50-100 per day.

His way of dealing with the press was amusing and novel. I'm not even talking about what he said. He used to "shush" the press. Then there was the "known unknowns" speech. I'm just sayingit was funny and clever. I know you'l disagree.

[SDW2001]

And your personal experience with a war, much less a brutal one is......

Oh here we go. It's just observation. Just look at the raw nunbers for Vietnam, Korea and WWII.

[tonton]

Oh here we go. It's just observation. Just look at the raw nunbers for Vietnam, Korea and WWII.

Wait... isn't it the premise of all of that Reagan spending on defense that today's technology should spare us from such atrocity during war?

This is not 1950 or 1960. We can do better now. At least that's what we supposedly spent all that money on, right?

[jimmac]

Actually, I watched the press conference. He didn't "admit that he deliberately lied." What he said was that the decision hadn't been made.

I do, however, agree with you that his explaination was a little lame - he hadn't "talked to Gates," and hadn't had "the final conversation" with Rumsfeld, but it wasn't at all unreasonable to hold his tongue on the matter since nothing was finalized.

Anyway - who cares. Are we really that desperate to find things wrong with this guy? What the hell difference does it make?

That's just the thing. We don't have to try hard at all!

[jimmac]

Oh here we go. It's just observation. Just look at the raw nunbers for Vietnam, Korea and WWII.


I prefer to look at the approach to that particular war. Say Vietnam, Iraq...... Not WWII because that really was so totally different.

[rageous]

Wait... isn't it the premise of all of that Reagan spending on defense that today's technology should spare us from such atrocity during war?

This is not 1950 or 1960. We can do better now. At least that's what we supposedly spent all that money on, right?


I'm not defending ANYTHING Iraq related, but wouldn't you say it's better that in 3 years of occupation we "only" lost 3,000 troops compared to past incidences of invasion/occupation?

And before any single one of you comes after me saying that I think 3k is in any way "okay," I have people very close to me there and more going soon. My decision to vote primarily Democrat was based in part on my desire to get those people out of there.

[jimmac]

I'm not defending ANYTHING Iraq related, but wouldn't you say it's better that in 3 years of occupation we "only" lost 3,000 troops compared to past incidences of invasion/occupation?

And before any single one of you comes after me saying that I think 3k is in any way "okay," I have people very close to me there and more going soon. My decision to vote primarily Democrat was based in part on my desire to get those people out of there.


That's as good a reason as I've seen.

[MacRR]

Oh here we go. It's just observation. Just look at the raw nunbers for Vietnam, Korea and WWII.
My point is that none of those wars are relevant to the incompetence of Rummy, and further more, even less relevant to the casualties and their families in this war. Just imagine how much debating, pain, waste could have been avoided if someone far more capable than Rummy was brought in long before it spiraled so out of control.

Why wait until an election to replace someone who so misarably failed? Is it fair to the troops who need the support from their leaders to have to wait for an election to take place before someone else who might have the skills and foresight to bring us a win is tapped? And shit- any situation resembling a partial win seems very unlikely at this point no matter who is brought in. Bush spoke of supporitng the troops, as do many repubs, dems, citizens, yet he used none of his power or responsibility (read duty) to actually do so until very late in the game- and that even remains to be seen. I continue to hope, however.

[SDW2001]

If it doesn't fall under FISA, what law(s) does it fall under?

It doesn't. The Admin has claimed its part of the President's Constitutional auithority to fight a war. Feel free to disagree.

[SDW2001]

I highly suggest you seek out and read the many stories about the soldiers who've died or were seriously wounded, and their families' struggles and let me know if you believe it's acceptable given the utter failure in planning and execution of a major war just because he stayed on track with some minor management of pentagon daily operations. Too bad he couldn't get on track to properly supply the troops while he was busy making sure the electricity bill was paid.

Seriously- you'd have to really bend over backwards and fold the blinders over your eyes to give Rummy credit for anything. A ten year old playing Command and Conquer would have done a better job of strategizing a war in Iraq.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have to give you credit on that last line. That was classic.

I see your points but respectfully disagree. I think you guys are just so angry about the war that you can't give him credit for his overall job performance. But whatever, he's gone....

[Aquatic]

A picture says a thousand words. Best post ever Gilsch.

[SDW2001]

Wait... isn't it the premise of all of that Reagan spending on defense that today's technology should spare us from such atrocity during war?

This is not 1950 or 1960. We can do better now. At least that's what we supposedly spent all that money on, right?

Well, and we did! We are. No?

[MacRR]

The truth is usually funny. :)

I understand you disagree, but would you care to illustrate what aspects of his job performance that were executed so unequivocally well that it would balance out his complete and utter failure of his biggest responsibility?

You know- it's okay to say someone sucked at their job when it's true, and not compromise on your values/beliefs related to THEIR failure. I don't feel that Rummy's or Bush's blatant failure in Iraq reflects poorly on Repubs as a whole- like you say, Dems voted for it as well. However, it absolutely reflects poorly on the individuals who are responsible for said failure.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have to give you credit on that last line. That was classic.

I see your points but respectfully disagree. I think you guys are just so angry about the war that you can't give him credit for his overall job performance. But whatever, he's gone....

[Gilsch]

I'm not defending ANYTHING Iraq related, but wouldn't you say it's better that in 3 years of occupation we "only" lost 3,000 troops compared to past incidences of invasion/occupation? If you want to speak of just our troops...obviously. But at the same time when comparing eras we have to consider that technology is much better now and most of our guys wear bullet proof vests, and have better equipment and armour. Who knows how many lives would've been saved had our guys had them 40 years ago. Who knows had many of the 20,000-30000 wounded in Iraq would've died from their injuries had they not benefitted from better equipment and vests.
And before any single one of you comes after me saying that I think 3k is in any way "okay," I have people very close to me there and more going soon. My decision to vote primarily Democrat was based in part on my desire to get those people out of there. Bless you. Three thousand is not ok though. And tens or hundreds of thousands of "liberated" Iraqis is not ok either.

[thuh Freak]

It doesn't. The Admin has claimed its part of the President's Constitutional auithority to fight a war. Feel free to disagree.

OK, I disagree. I think its too dangerous to allow that kind of power without expressing it explicitly. Especially when it looks and feels like its so close to a codified law.

[Frank777]

If you want to speak of just our troops...obviously. But at the same time when comparing eras we have to consider that technology is much better now and most of our guys wear bullet proof vests, and have better equipment and armour. Who knows how many lives would've been saved had our guys had them 40 years ago. Who knows had many of the 20,000-30000 wounded in Iraq would've died from their injuries had they not benefitted from better equipment and vests.

The problem is that everyone's shooting with better guns as well. ;)

[Gilsch]

Gilsch,
On point one, I'm merely saying that they are two different issues. I also think that linking Rumsfeld's "management" of the war is tough to do. No it isn't. Considering the history of Iraq, it's ethnic composition etc, the country should've been secured after Saddam and his army had been defeated. It's like having dogs that don't like each other. Put them in the same yard and pretty soon they'll end up fighting. It's well documented that Generals wanted many more troops and Rumsfeld opposed that. Linking Rumsfeld's management of the war is blatantly easy actually. Getting a hard number for Iraqi casualties is very difficult. Some say 10,000. Some say 30. Some say 100. Some say 300. As is in any conflict. However I don't know who says 10,000. Rumsfeld or someone who worked for him maybe. Considering there's been months of 3,000/month just this year alone.....Granted, it has gone on longer which causes more casualties. Having more troops would have arguable saved more lives as well. I just think it's a different topic. I love how you end up contradicting yourself sooner or later. It's gone on longer because it's been horribly mismanaged. Beginning from dismissing top Generals' suggestions(requests?) that we needed MANY more troops to secure the country. I do know what a brutal war "looks like." How about 50,000 dead Americans? or 65,000? Or 200,000 (600,000 wounded) Those were three brutal wars: Korea, Vietnam and WWII. We've lost,on average, one person a day in this war. At the heigh of Vietnam, we were losing 50-100 per day. It's common knowledge. We all know about all those wars. I don't know what you were trying to say when you wrote this:I don't think you have any clue what a really brutal war looks like but that comment is looking even more ridiculous now after your "explanation" than when you posted it.
His way of dealing with the press was amusing and novel. I'm not even talking about what he said. He used to "shush" the press. Then there was the "known unknowns" speech. I'm just sayingit was funny and clever. I know you'l disagree. Amusing yeah. It was funny to watch a senile chickenhawk not admit mistakes, blame others, and lie through his teeth when it was obvious he was "spinning" and bending the truth like a shapeshifter. I agree with the novel part so long as we take the true meaning of the word:

Novel: a fictitious prose narrative of book length typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.

[Gilsch]

The problem is that everyone's shooting with better guns as well. ;) Wrong. The AK-47's been around since 1949 whereas Kevlar body armour wasn't around until the 1970s. So ;) back at ya.

[MacRR]

AK-47s aren't the biggest problem over there, anyways. IEDs are the problem. Kevlar is pretty good on protecting the head and torso- resulting in many saved lives- but poor in protecting extremities so that's why so many soldiers lose them.

There's many interesting articles on combat medicine in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Here's a link to Iraq NEJM topics that illustrates such injuries and subsequent care. It's fascinating, really. It's unbelieveable how good our military has become at battle medicine. Alas, some links/pictures are extremely gory, violent, real, etc. so unless you're interested in such things you'd probably want to skip it.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/search?searchterm=Iraq&sortspec=Score%2Bdesc%2BPUBDATE_SORTDATE%2Bdesc&andorexactfulltext=and&where=fulltext&excludeflag=TWEEK_element&hits=20

The positive thing is all the discoveries and benefits that doctors learn in Iraq will filter over here into our medical care.

[SDW2001]

Gilsch:

No it isn't. Considering the history of Iraq, it's ethnic composition etc, the country should've been secured after Saddam and his army had been defeated. It's like having dogs that don't like each other. Put them in the same yard and pretty soon they'll end up fighting. It's well documented that Generals wanted many more troops and Rumsfeld opposed that. Linking Rumsfeld's management of the war is blatantly easy actually.

I partially agree with that. More troops may have helped prevent civilian deaths. I don't know as its certain, but it's reasonable.

As is in any conflict. However I don't know who says 10,000. Rumsfeld or someone who worked for him maybe. Considering there's been months of 3,000/month just this year alone.....

Well, whatever. It's a side point. Many have died, which I assume is your point.

I love how you end up contradicting yourself sooner or later. It's gone on longer because it's been horribly mismanaged. Beginning from dismissing top Generals' suggestions(requests?) that we needed MANY more troops to secure the country.

I disagree there, because proving that is impossible. I think one could argue that it would have potentially been less violent, but I don't know that it would have been any faster. We're talking about taking over and rebuilding and entire country, the size of California. Three years isn't exactly a long time.


It's common knowledge. We all know about all those wars. I don't know what you were trying to say when you wrote this:

My point is to counter those who claim the war is exceptionally bloody for Americans. By any historical comparison, it's not, not as wars go. Further, it therefore can't be used as a bat to hit Rumsfeld with. That's where I was going.

Amusing yeah. It was funny to watch a senile chickenhawk not admit mistakes, blame others, and lie through his teeth when it was obvious he was "spinning" and bending the truth like a shapeshifter. I agree with the novel part so long as we take the true meaning of the word:

OK, so it's clear you hate this man beyond all reason. ;) That's fine. I'm just saying his style was fun to watch sometimes. I disagree he "lied through his teeth." He certainly wasn't senile. The term chickenhawk is stupid no matter when it's used, unless you believe we shouldn't have civilian leadership of the military.

Look, it's clear you hate the guy, really. It's clear you feel his job performance was terrible in all areas. What can I say except that I disagree and you're going to have to deal with that. My feeling is that he got a good start on reforming the military to face the challenges it will face this century. This includes force restructuring throughout the globe, defense policy, fighting terrorism, development of high tech weapons, etc. It also inlcudes the combat phase of the Iraq war, which was brilliant and will liekly be studied for years to come as an example of the way to take over a large country quickly. The occupation of Iraq has not gone well, and that is where Rumsfled would have, in the end, earned his pink slip from me. That was all him, and I make no excuses for it. I simply refuse to condemn him on the whole for the management of said occupation.

[SDW2001]

What a well thought out post! What, from your perspective were Rumsfeld's mistakes and problems? Why did you hate him so much?

edit: removed quote. I deleted the original post - rageous

[SpamSandwich]

Bush deserves impeachment for torture and for ignoring the FISA laws. If this was 1800, he'd be out for such things. However, the simple fact is that it would probably be bad politically for Democrats, and they know it. Clinton was never more popular than when Republicans were impeaching him.

He deserves impeachment for destroying habeas corpus alone.

[AsLan^]

Although I don't feel it particularly necessary to reply, perhaps you can consider this.

It is somewhat important to have some faith in the leaders above you. Watching them on TV answering questions with double speak and lies does wonders for ones morale.

Disclosure: I was lucky enough to avoid going to Iraq.

You talk about Iraq like it's just a side note (a comma perhaps) on his otherwise impeccable record. This is what's insulting, his complete disregard for the council of his generals and his own mismanagement has directly resulted in the needless deaths of soldiers and civilians alike.

You seem to think that reduced troop numbers just means it takes longer for us to do our mission. What it actually means is that soldiers not specifically trained for combat are having to fill combat roles.

Sergeant Majors tell their troops, "We're all infantry now..." This sounds like a reasonable idea, I mean after all the Marines practice that mantra. But in practice it's just not true. It takes a lot of training to get the skill set and mind set, necessary to be an effective infantry soldier, a couple of months of infantry training just prior to deployment just doesn't cut it in my book. How do I know this? I joined as infantry in 98 and reclassed in 2002, to a non combat MOS. So I know what infantry is like, and I know what the combat support SGM's are telling their troops.

So why didn't I do anything about it you ask? Transfer my awesome infantry skills to those who could use them. Well I did my best, but there's only so much you can do when your unit has a real world mission that takes up 90% of your available time. Not only that, the Army still has some backwards logistical systems meaning that non combat units can't have the ammo they need to properly train. And other realistic training aids such as simmunition are simply unavailable. For units not in Iraq, budgets have been decimated. Less money for our own missions, less money for training, do more with less - you get tired of hearing that. Is that the force restructuring you are talking about?

[Gilsch]

Look, it's clear you hate the guy, really. It's clear you feel his job performance was terrible in all areas. I don't hate the guy. I don't rate him enough to "hate" him. And yes, his performance was terrible for the most part. Especially re: Iraq.

About the civilians leading the military....why would I have a problem with that? I do however have a problem with the cowards who love to send others to war and who criticize those who don't share the same affection. More so when the ones sending others to die never saw combat.

And if you never saw Rumsfeld lie through his teeth, you weren't paying attention or reading the internets.

[jimmac]

I don't hate the guy. I don't rate him enough to "hate" him. And yes, his performance was terrible for the most part. Especially re: Iraq.

About the civilians leading the military....why would I have a problem with that? I do however have a problem with the cowards who love to send others to war and who criticize those who don't share the same affection. More so when the ones sending others to die never saw combat.

And if you never saw Rumsfeld lie through his teeth, you weren't paying attention or reading the internets.


All this and still he's not the heart of the matter. He was only a lacky.

[thuh Freak]

Funny little story here (http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/nation/15981318.htm). A few marines were staked out in an Iraqi home. As they were on active duty and searching for the enemy, they hadn't been up to date on the week's news. The host of the home they were staked out in told them he saw on tv that Rummy was out. He told the marines, and one says, "Who's Rumsfeld?"

[Akumulator]

Rummy's also about to face criminal charges in Germany for crimes relating to Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Also to be charged... Gonzalez and Tenet and others.

Just days after his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Read: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

:)

Edit: also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmLToYe8nRo

[Gilsch]

I partially agree with that. More troops may have helped prevent civilian deaths. I don't know as its certain, but it's reasonable. May have?? How Rumsfelian of you. :DI disagree there, because proving that is impossible. I think one could argue that it would have potentially been less violent, but I don't know that it would have been any faster. We're talking about taking over and rebuilding and entire country, the size of California. Three years isn't exactly a long time. Proving that is "impossible"? Are you kidding? What more proof than the violent hell hole Iraq has become do you want? US troops dying unnecesarily because some arrogant civilian hawks thought they knew better than the military and failed miserably in the post invasion "planning". Including failure to secure explosives, munition and weapons depots. Brilliant. The top Generals adviced/requested many more troops. They were ridiculed and brushed aside. Their fears became true. You want proof?? You know, I would expect your comment to come from a politician...or someone in denial. You've painted yourself into a corner of denial that at present not even the likes or Richard Perle and Wolfowitz would want to be in. My point is to counter those who claim the war is exceptionally bloody for Americans. By any historical comparison, it's not, not as wars go. Further, it therefore can't be used as a bat to hit Rumsfeld with. That's where I was going. You're comparing apples to oranges when you compare wars. Vietnam lasted much longer than 3 years. Quite a stretch to think that comparing the casualties of longer and much larger conflicts to Iraq somehow proves your point of exempting Rumsfeld from responsibility. "Further", I believe Vietnam had less casualties than Iraq in its first 3 years. My feeling is that he got a good start on reforming the military to face the challenges it will face this century. Did you quote the last part directly from PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? :DThis includes force restructuring throughout the globe, defense policy, fighting terrorism, development of high tech weapons, etc. None of the things you mentioned above are the exclusivity of Rumsfeld. They happen with every administration. Maybe you could be much more specific? I also don't think stretching our army too thin like everyone recognizes( I could post links to literally hundreds of articles by people in the know including our top military) is something you should be posting as a Rumsfeld achievement. :lol: It also inlcudes the combat phase of the Iraq war, which was brilliant and will liekly be studied for years to come as an example of the way to take over a large country quickly. :???: Like we were ever gonna have a problem destroying what was left of Iraq's military? Only Baghdad Bob thought we'd have a hard time removing Saddam from power.

[MacRR]

hahahaaa...


so true- almost. :)
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55077