Slashdot Mirror
Ridge, Homeland Security Head, Steps Down
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."
No, not really.
... except for the Presidency, that is.
This kind of thing always goes on between terms. No one wants to get stuck in the same job for 8 years
sigs, as if you care.
I'm assuming the submitter is confusing Donald Rumsfeld with Donald Evans, the outgoing Commerce Secretary.
> "9/11" was the worst thing that had ever happened to Americans.
Surely not even in the same league as our civil war.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
sigs, as if you care.
Yeah, the live TV coverage seen worldwide of that crisis was riveting.
I don't know if you are being sarcasic or making a point (or both) but perhaps you should research the New York City draft riots, the utter destruction of Atlanta and other Southern cities, the carnage of Fredericksburg or the 620,000+ KIAs. To put that into perspective that's almost 2% of the population of the day. Think of us fighting a war and suffering 5,800,000 killed-in-action and perhaps 10,000,000 - 20,000,000 wounded. Also keep in mind that "wounded" during the Civil War likely meant missing arms or legs upon your return from the front.
Live TV coverage or not 9/11 doesn't even come close to the Civil War in terms of impact on American Society. 9/11 wasn't even the bloodiest day in American history. In fact I would dare say that the live TV coverage didn't have as much to do with the impact of 9/11 as people might think. Pearl Harbor had a similar impact without live-TV coverage..
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
There is an interesting correlation between presidents and their respective turnover rates that should also be taken into account.
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.
The Geneva Conventions are quaint. They simply don't take into account modern warfare. I mean, look at how the terrorists in Fallujah violate the Geneva Convenentions left and right. They attack from (and store weapons in) mosques, schools, hospitals, etc. They falsely wave the white flag and then ambush anyone who tries to take them prisoner. They play dead and boobytrap bodies.
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.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
I think you miss the point. The Geneva Conventions only work if both sides are abiding by them. You can't seriously demand that no one bomb a church if one side is using it as a firebase.
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
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.