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."

10 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Rumsfeld resigned? by hedronist · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess I spent too long in the john: I'm gone 5 minutes and Rummy is history?

    Or not....

    Can't find anything on news.google.com

  2. Uh by wizbit · · Score: 4, Informative

    Rumsfeld resigned? Where the frig did you read that?

    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.

    1. Re:Uh by damiangerous · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm assuming the submitter is confusing Donald Rumsfeld with Donald Evans, the outgoing Commerce Secretary.

    2. Re:Uh by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rumsfeld resigned? Where the frig did you read that?

      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.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  3. This could be good... by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's just about as many people who left Clinton's cabinet in between terms. I'm hoping it means they think their jobs are done and there's nothing major looming on the horizon that any of them feel like they need to be a part of.

    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.

    --
    Direct away from face when opening.
    1. Re: This could be good... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful


      > "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
    2. Re:This could be good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ashcroft, as kooky as he was, is being replaced by a guy who wrote a memo that called the Geneva conventions "quaint" and argued that it'd be legal for the administration to apply torture to certain people, some of whom would inevitably be innocent.

      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.

    3. Re: This could be good... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:This could be good... by Erwos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
  4. Re:Yes, but not quite. by overunderunderdone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.