Slashdot Mirror
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
macinrack writes to tell us that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of the unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon. Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld.
This only happend because the Democrats won the house. Rumsfeld offered his resignation to the President at least 2 times in the past, and was rejected.
This is just playing politics. It's just like Pelosi stating she won't start any impeachment. Each party must concede something to get any support from the opposite party. Dems say they won't impeach and Bush gives up Rumsfeld. These people care more about their political games than actually taking a stand on something.
Developers: We can use your help.
Who the hell modded this insightful? Did you do any fact-checking whatsoever?
t
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabine
"Cabinet officers are nominated by the President and then presented to the United States Senate for confirmation or rejection. If approved, they are sworn in, receive the title 'Secretary', and begin their duties."
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
He actually said that he would not ask Rumsfeld to step down and that Rumsfeld would have the job as long as he wanted it, but nice try though.
Finding other idiots on
The election is over. I wonder if Allen will have the guts to forgo a recount, and live up to the statements he made in 2000. Keep in mind the gap refered to in this quote was 500 votes. Allen is behind by several thousand.
And Allen on the Today show 11/8/2000:
The morning after Election Day 2000, when Florida was counting absentee ballots, George Allen said, "we'll need to move America forward as soon as those votes are cast."
- Walsh Iran / Contra Report
Developers: We can use your help.
"...mostly because he usually tells it like it is even when how it is isn't what people wish they were hearing."
Rumsfeld doesn't "tell it like it is", he uses condescension and (indirect) insults to avoid answering questions he doesn't like. *That* is why people don't like him.
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
> That handshake was after Hussein had gassed the kurds with US supplied chemicals.
t tack
No, it was five years earlier.
1983
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
1988
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_a
If they try to ram anything through the Senate in the 6 weeks they have left, we'll filibuster it. Maybe if we get really lucky they'll pull that "nuclear option" bullshit now and erase the option of filibuster just in time for us to take over the majority. That will make bringing Bush to justice all the speedier.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Yes, but the new electees don't actually start today... They start in January. We're still stuck with them until they get a chance to clean out their desks.
The U.S. abides by the concept of "civilian supremacy," meaning the civilians have ultimate control over the military. According to the laws on the books, you can't be Secretary of Defense unless you have been out of uniform for over ten years. Thus, Generals aren't legally eligible to be SecDef unless they've been retired for over ten years, i.e. a civilian.
This was the reason Colin Powell became SecState instead of SecDef, because the ten-year rule made it illegal for Powell to be SecDef. It's the same reason Wes Clark, Shinseki, and others cannot legally be SecDef for a very long time yet. Wes Clark can run for president (just as people wanted Powell to run in 1996), but he can't be SecDef until after 2010. Shinseki can't be SecDef until after 2013.
Since when does Congress exercising its constitutionally mandated oversight duties constitute grandstanding?
Information
here
Quote:
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:
# "A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."
# "Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic -- especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."
# "Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."
# "The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."
# "Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."
# "A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
>The military wanted this fight just as badly as the Bush administration did.
The Army War College warned against it, General Newbold opposed it, General Shinseki didn't want to do it with that few troops, General Cordingley opposed it in public, and General Zinni of Central COmmand said it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time before the invasion.
hrmm... I dunno.... that's not likely the reason he left. Like you said, he could just be subpoenaed.
It's more likely that he left because Bush recognized that the way the Iraq war was going was the major reason that his party lost the House (and possibly the Senate) and finally decided that he couldn't just stick with the same guys who'd been doing a crappy job this whole time. Like someone else said, Rummy tried to leave a couple of times before... it's just that now, Bush finally had the motivation to let the guy fall on his sword.
WATYF
I don't think I was being clear enough and you've misunderstood my post. When I say silly piece of paper, I mean a bill passing a resolution for war. Not the consitution. When I say "get over it", I do not mean the war. I've never been a supporter of this debacle. What I meant is that people need to stop arguing over wether or not we've declared war. It doesn't matter if we declared "Cheese". We're still in the middle of a god damn war.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Please read the entire article, which includes links to documents showing that the U.S. intelligence new about Saddam using chemical weapons against "kurdish insurgents". The document in question was written in Nov. 1983. They had known about Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians for longer. Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in Dec. 1983.
Which is not to imply that Rumsfeld necessarily knew what Hussein doing, him being an envoy at the time not the Defense Secretary as he was yesterday. Our government did know, though, and sent Rumsfeld on his make-nice mission anyway. Never forget that -- when it was expedient, the government welcomed a genocidal maniac as an ally, and then turned on them when it was convenient. Try to remember when in twenty years you're hearing about the evils of Uzbekistan and the need for 'liberation'.
The enemies of Democracy are
Perhaps it would be helpful to include an answer to the paper by Mearsheimer and Walt to provide some balance. They take a very strong (and rather conspiratorial approach) and thus perhaps those who read it should see a published response also posted on Harvard's site: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers /dershowitzreply.pdf
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
Honestly, voting rights in America shouldn't be based on age, they should be based on independence and tax status. Its great being a liberal if someone else's tax money is being spent.
You really need to keep up.
The Republicans are the party of bigger government than even the Democrats and have been for 30 years
They spend more, increase the size of government much more.
Anybody who votes for Republicans for fiscal issues is a delusional moron who hasn't paid a bit of attention to the situation in decades.
Indeed, a quick glance at Digg's top stories shows that people were on their toes all over America, just waiting to pounce on any perceived shenanigans at the polls. Over 1/3 of all the stories on yesterday's front Political News page are about Republicans trying to steal the election.
http://www.digg.com/politics/page3
Title says all
I don't recall any declarations of war...
Maybe this will help:
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Congratulations on making the post that broke slashdot.
www.isoHunt.com