Topic: Rumsfeld Resigns

[Ghandi]

Link

November 8, 2006
Rumsfeld Resigns as Defense Secretary After Big Election Gains for Democrats
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon, Republican officials said Wednesday.

Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld.

The development occurred one day after midterm elections that cost Republicans control of the House, and possibly the Senate, as well. Surveys of voters at polling places said opposition to the war was a significant contributor to the Democratic victory.

President Bush was expected to announce Rumsfeld's departure and Gates' nomination at an afternoon news conference. Administration officials notified congressional officials in advance.

Last week, as he campaigned to save the Republican majority, Bush declared that Rumsfeld would remain at the Pentagon through the end of his term.

Rumsfeld, 74, was in his second tour of duty as defense chief. He first held the job a generation ago, when he was appointed by President Ford.

Gates is the president of Texas A&M University and a close friend of the Bush family. He served as CIA director for Bush's father from 1991 until 1993.

Gates first joined the CIA in 1966 and served in the intelligence community for more than a quarter century, under six presidents.

His nomination must be confirmed by the Senate.

This is huge, not just for political reasons but for our soldiers in Iraq as well. There were many top commanders in Iraq who vocally opposed how Rumsfeld was handling the war. Hopefully the new Defense Secretary will do a better job of protecting our soldiers and not getting them killed.

[Cobra951]

You see?  The shakeup in Congess is already yielding some fruit.  Not to say the next guy will be better (maybe worse?) but it does open the door to some hope of positive change. 

[gpw11]

I was thinking about this today:

Do you think the young pseudo political people will be really disillusioned when they realize the Democrats are too responsible to call for an immediate withdrawal?  I think it could be interesting.

[Quemaqua]

It isn't going to change jack shit.  The idiots are in every corner.

[scottws]

It's ironic.  I was dissuaded into believing this war in Iraq thing was just, once-upon-a-time.  Now, I just think it's a huge clusterfuck.

American soldiers are dying.  British soldiers are dying.  Iraqi citizens are dying.  The image of America and Americans has suffered further.  There is no end to the violence in sight which means we could be there forever, and it is quite possible that the violence will never stop.  If we pull out, Iraq is fucked... who knows what would happen.

[idolminds]

Yeah, we're in a pretty shitty situation. We look bad if we stay, we look worse if we leave.

[Pugnate]

The last thing the world needs is for America to pull out of Iraq. They need to keep at her till she is safe. At least with Saddam there was some stability -- there I said it. Now that the deed is done, they need to have some sort of an influence there till things are sorted out.

But like Idol said, it is damned if you do and damned if you don't.

BTW the new Firefox won't give you a single excuse on spelling mistakes, will it?

[Cobra951]

Every one of you has said something I agree with.  I think it was Colin Powell who said something like "if we break it, we own it".  We broke it, and now we have to pay for fixing it, as long as it takes.  That we went out of our way to break it, for no good reason at all, is our undying shame, courtesy of the dolt in the White House.  We do need to stay for as long as it takes, as long as we're actually accomplishing something rather than losing more ground.  If the whole thing degenerates into a civil war, then what the hell are we supposed to do about it, militarily?  I think then it becomes a humanitarian issue, for which we should pick up the tab. 

Last I heard, the Senate was still up in the air.  I hope Republicans lost that too.  It's not that I think the Democrats are any better.  I don't, plus their victories empower vicious leftist morons like Bill Maher to run at the mouth.  (See last night's Larry King.)  But this is the only way the people can tell our government, in a clear, unmistakable way, that things have got to change.  What's there now is fucked up beyond belief.

Edit:

BTW the new Firefox won't give you a single excuse on spelling mistakes, will it?

I'm still on 1.0.7.     With all these spellcheckers, I can't show off my good-spelling ability anymore.  Boo hoo!  *Sob*

[Pugnate]

Plus the rewards of sorting things out in Iraq for the US of A are great. It would mean a huge influence in OPEC's decisions.

[shock]

Senate has been claimed by the Democrats!  Whee!

[scottws]

You know it's bad when people who consider themselves Republicans for the most part (me, for instance) want the Republicans gone.

We need to do something about the special interest bullshit.  Somehow come up with some law that gives politicians free airtime or something would help a lot.

[Ghandi]

There are countries that have free airtime, Brazil is one of these. They give each candidate (candidate meaning you can assure a certain number of votes) 30 minutes (something around there) of free airtime, to be used whenever they want. The thing is, this doesn't stop the rich candidates from purchasing more airtime. It isn't free airtime, but controlled airtime, that is really the answer.

[Cobra951]

Someone just said something about this yesterday.  I forget exactly what.  Was it about England?  Damn, I wish I had paid more attention.

Yes, I agree that the solution is to limit possible spending, give everyone free air time, and prohibit any groups from buying politician loyalty (with anything other than individual votes).  Let the lawyers figure out the language to make that happen loophole-free.

[Antares]

There are countries that have free airtime, Brazil is one of these. They give each candidate (candidate meaning you can assure a certain number of votes) 30 minutes (something around there) of free airtime, to be used whenever they want. The thing is, this doesn't stop the rich candidates from purchasing more airtime. It isn't free airtime, but controlled airtime, that is really the answer.

I don't think that works either, especially as a person who isn't a fan of a two party system, the system shouldn't empower any party over another one more than it already does.

To respond to what scott said: The republican party has lost it's way.  It should be about smaller government, fewer taxes and greater civil liberties.   Gay Marriage bans, pushing dumbass theories like intelligent design, and expensive wars, and a huge deficit do the exact opposite.

[Cobra951]

Unfortunately, the democrats have also lost their way.  They should be about protecting the working people, making sure corporations don't suck all the money to the top of the heap, instituting some social conscience in the workplace, helping the poor cope, preventing HMOs from raping everyone, etc.  Instead, they've gravitated as far left as the republicans have gravitated right.  There is no centrist, populist party anymore.  That is one huge problem, serious to the core.

[Quemaqua]

Not that I ever felt confident about the Democrats and their ability to function as a centrist party, but I agree with Cobra at this point.  We have a huge problem because really, nobody is representing the people at all, much less attempting to *assist* in looking out for them.

[nickclone]

I agree, but I also disagree. Yes the dems have moved further left than ever before, but they did this to counter the republicans who have gone far to the right and won elections. The dems think this is what the people want, but of course it isn't.

Call me a bleeding heart if you want to, but I think the dems (even as far left as they are right now) will never be as disappointing, greedy and hurtful to country as the GOP has been. The dems have a huge mess to clean up and I hope the people of America don't expect a quick fix and give them some some time to work things out.

As for Iraq, we need to leave. Some of you believe that we shouldn't bail until we've "fixed" the country, but I think we need to leave to fix the country. Iraq is a big festering wound that needs to heal, but it never will as long as we're there to blow shit up and rub salt in the wound. Sure the Sunnis, Kurds and Shi'ites don't normally get along, but now that we're they they have a common enemy and we have a never ending supply of targets that need to be taken down.

I say we let the three groups pick out territories for themselves (within reason), give the government the money to rebuild everything while we supervise without interfering and take the noose from around Saddam's neck. We already have the guy in custody, no need to make him a martyr.

[Pugnate]

As for Iraq, we need to leave. Some of you believe that we shouldn't bail until we've "fixed" the country, but I think we need to leave to fix the country. Iraq is a big festering wound that needs to heal, but it never will as long as we're there to blow shit up and rub salt in the wound. Sure the Sunnis, Kurds and Shi'ites don't normally get along, but now that we're they they have a common enemy and we have a never ending supply of targets that need to be taken down.

If the USA leave it would be disastrous. And the 'blow shit up' bit has been long over. Now is the healing stage, and all the American troops are doing is maintaining some sanity on the streets.

What about those people who have supported the democratic viewpoint in Iraq? Any support that the USA has gathered would be lost.

[nickclone]

If the USA leave it would be disastrous. And the 'blow shit up' bit has been long over. Now is the healing stage, and all the American troops are doing is maintaining some sanity on the streets.

What about those people who have supported the democratic viewpoint in Iraq? Any support that the USA has gathered would be lost.

Shit isn't being blown up on the massive scale that it was when the war started, but you bet on the fact that its happening. Anytime theres bullets, guerrilla/urban combat and American soldiers dying, there is always something being blown up.

The US has slim to no support on the war in Iraq, it barely had any to begin with and we've lost those teammates as well. Perhaps Bush should drop the macho act, admit his stupidity and beg the UN for help...if they'll have him. It won't help Iraq, but it sure as hell would help the US. Besides, policing the country as we are now isn't helping and it won't get any better anytime soon.

On a different note, what do you think the history books will write about George Bush in a hundred years? In my history class some presidents were only portrayed as idiots, some were even skipped over.