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.
Sure sure, run away just as we get the chance to ask some real questions.
Seems to me like he's just trying to hide. Cut and run.
Fact is, he'll still have to answer subpeonas.
To be honest, his strategy for initially winning the war was really damn good. He is honestly a man I would want leading out troops in a traditional war. (minus the body armor stupidity...)
He blows massive chunks at the entire "making peace after war" part though, and that is the part that gets your name in the history books....
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
This has to be some of the worst timing for any policy decision. If only he would have resigned a few days ago (and Bush not said he was going to stick around to the end), the Republicans would have had a real chance.
... last week would have been the perfect time to finally accept his prior offers and for Bush to say "hey, we've made some mistakes in Iraq, it's time we all sit down together and figure out how to do it right" instead of his continued stubborn insistence on staying the course and doing things his way.
Sure, he may not have specifically offered until today, but he has offered his resignation at least twice in the past
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
There are plenty of political websites for you to get your rocks off on.
Lets stick with technology related news.
After the Army Times called for Rumsfeld to step down, the White House could no longer ignore criticisms of the SecDef. That, and a Democratic Congress could very well "blackmail" the White House with legislative stoppages until Rumsfeld resigns. Rumsfeld was good at waging the initial war, but was simply unable to adapt to the insurgency or maintaining an extended peace.
Ahem. It hasn't been decided whether the Republicans still control the Senate. Two races are so close that there will be a recount and that will take weeks.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Which war did Rumsfeld help win? Afghanistan? The Taliban are retaking cities everyday. Iraq? You know that more US soldiers died after the declaration of "victory" than during the so called "war" ?
This happens only after Republican blood was spilled in the election. The blood of thousands of soldiers spilled on the battlefield didn't count for squat.
The real menace within the DOD is Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of all of the USA's global imperialist schemes since at least the Carter years.
Unfortunately, last year someone decided he was of better use as president of the World Bank than Deputy Secretary of Defense.
First, Montana has already been decided in favor of the Democrat.
Second, he was talking about confirming the new nominee (Bob Gates) during the lame-duck period of the existing 55-44-1 Senate.
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
I guess he can go and shake hands with Saddam Hussein one more time. "We had a lot of fun times, huh? Too bad you used our gas on civilians. Perhaps if it'd be Palestinian civilians you were killing with our hardware you might have got away with it..."
Who knew the New American Century was actually only six years long?
Well, us American voters kinda prefer the Old American Century, with Habeus Corpus and without torture. Don't you ?
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
Sure sure, run away just as we get the chance to ask some real questions.
Seems to me like he's just trying to hide. Cut and run.
Fact is, he'll still have to answer subpeonas.
I agree, to a point, the timing to coincide with the GOP losses indicate, more than regret that his execution of Iraqi Freedom, but an attempt to duck a real grilling. He won't have a lot of people running interference for him now. This is going to really isolate Bush. It should be a very interesting 2 years.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"This only happend because the Democrats won the house."
Actually, I'd guess it happened because the new Senate may end up with a clear Democratic majority.
By letting Rumsfeld go now and appointing a successor immediately, Bush has a very good chance to get his appointee confirmed in the current, Republican-controlled Senate. (The Democrats could stall the confirmation until the end of the current session, but they wouldn't gain from it. It would be bad press, and Bush would just make a recess appointment between sessions anyway.)
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Um, it was pretty bloody clear right from the word go that it was going to end up in a guerrilla warfare situation and a decades long occupation. The idea that it would be all over in a year or two was utterly utterly naive. More, the unwillingless to listen to an ally who has spent the last 40 years managing a situation just like that is stupidity.
In conclusion, either the man is a complete dolt or has a whole other agenda.
Deleted
Yes. That's precisely what they want you to think. That's how they keep the population placated. Ritual sacrifice of an entirely replaceable pawn. Now, over the next two years, you try to evaluate what actual effect this replacement had. Then you'll learn something worthwhile. To save you time, and so you'll know what you're looking for, I'll tell you what changes you'll see: None.
That is how the entire system works, from voting to subpoena even right through to impeachment, rare as that might be. Individuals are sacrificed and the system changes not one teeny, tiny, bit.
Didn't you hear the democrats last night, babbling about 9/11 and "security"? Didn't you hear them talking about a "new direction" in Iraq? Not restoration of rights, not repeal of any of these bullshit laws, nothing about Bush's signing statements, nothing about torture, nothing about the (barely) 3-day congressional workweek and the blatant corporate funds driven legislation mechanism, nothing about all the illegal wiretapping, nothing about funneling billions of dollars to Haliburton et al without so much as a single competitive bid, nothing about the lies about WMD, nothing about Bush's admission (yesterday) that this was about oil, after all, not a word about habeas corpus, nothing about pulling out troops -- it's business as usual in Washington, and you can count on it. -Rumsfeld, +Gates, that's all. They're both pawns and mouthpieces, no more, no less.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Seriously, we managed to "defeat" a 3rd world army that had been under economic sanctions for years.
How much "strategy" does that take? Particularly with our weapons.
His whole "strategy" is "keep dropping bombs until we drop the right bomb on the right place at the right time". Go check the new sites. Find the LAST time we dropped any bombs on Iraq. Was it a year ago? A month ago? A week ago? A day ago? An hour ago?
Just a quick search shows us bombing them on 27 October 2006.
And yet our troops keep being killed.
Rumsfeld is not "Good at war, bad at peace". Rumsfeld is bad at war and bad at peace. Rumsfeld cannot tell the difference between war and peace. And Rumsfeld doesn't care.
It may be a silly piece of paper to you, but it's the U.S. Constitution to the rest of us. We have declarations of war for good reasons, like how to know when it's over. But I guess that's the point of undeclared war -- perpetual sacrifice, continuous casualties, being told to "get over it" and just go along. In fact, being told to "get over it" is getting kind of old to me . . .
I am not a crackpot.
Consider the equivalent situation in politics. According to several in-depth reports (notably from "Frontline" at PBS), Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the White House (with the exception of Colin Powell) completely screwed up the post-war occupation of Iraq. Rumsfeld himself intervened in several important decisions and overruled the suggestions of senior commanders in the field.
Who pays the price? Nearly 3000 American soldiers died, and 50,000 soldiers are wounded.
Though Rumsfeld was fired today, he will still live well on his multi-million-dollar corporate pension. Yet, how will we restore the lives of 3000 dead soldiers and 50,000 severely wounded soldiers?
Yes, you can pardon someone before they are charged as, notably, Ford did for Nixon.
I find it hard to believe that Rumsfeld's earlier offers of resignation were an act, because there would have been nothing gained from it. It's a sort of admission of failure, an acknowledgement that things aren't going well. Politically, it would have been better for Rumsfeld to "stay the course" and pretend that everything is going fine.
Yeah, but House always gets good results.
Let's tell a little story here: Soldier Adam (an firefighter in civilian life), who lives in Oceania, has been "sent by his country" to Eastasia to liberate it. Soldier Chen (a dockworker in civilian life), who lives in Eastasia, has been "ordered by his country" to defend against the invasion. Each of them, along with the buddies in their unit, are in a firefight - bombs are raining down, machine gun fire is everywhere, maybe an RPG or two is launched. Some of Soldier Adam's buddies are dead or severely wounded - maybe Adam himself. On the other side, some of Soldier Chen's buddies are hurt or dead themselves. The battle is heated, but things slow down, and one side or both has retreated to re-group (let's pretend a standoff of some sort here). As they re-group, they have time to cool off, and perhaps think about things (briefly - tension is high). Soldier Adam thinks about his fiance and new son back home, wondering if he will get back to the firehouse. Soldier Chen wonders about his wife and sister, who live with them - do they have enough to eat? - and will he get back to work on the dock (is the dock still there?). Neither one wants to be there, they both want to be back home (wherever it is), they both want the same thing: peace, stability, a roof over their head, food, water, and some work to do.
So how the hell are they here, seeing each other as the Other - as a non-entity to be killed or bypassed in some brutal manner? Of course, they are doing the jobs they were told to do (and hopefully not obeying illegal orders - though that might be more difficult to do than you think for either). Even so, didn't either of them, Adam or Chen, have this thought processs about war, and what it means for people on both sides, before they signed up (ignoring drafting here - but still) to kill each other?
What the hell is it about humanity's inability to put itself in other's shoes - to see each other as humans, with human wants and needs? Why do they obey a leader or a country to fight and kill each other, when each knows (whether through logic and reason, or by decree of religion) that killing is wrong? Why is it OK if the State tells you to kill (or the State kills itself, as in the death penalty), but if an individual citizen of the State does so without the State's approval, it suddenly becomes wrong? If the State is really composed of "we the people" - then shouldn't all killing, regardless of context, be wrong equally (or right equally, if you want to take that stance)? Admittedly, Soldier Chen is on a better footing than Soldier Adam, even though he was drafted by his State - simply because his State was invaded, not Adam's. Even so, why can't each look, and see, and understand and know, after all these thousands of years of human history, that more and bigger weapons DO NOT LEAD TO PEACE, and the killing each other is NOT A LONG TERM SOLUTION?
Every new and more powerful weapon is hailed as the device that will bring peace to the planet - from Nobel's discovery of dynamite, to the machine gun, to the nuclear bomb, to...? What is next? An anti-matter weapon to cleanse planets ala "Chronicles of Riddick"? Will the destruction of the planet bring peace? Will there only be piece when there is only one man-monkey sitting in the ashes of a scorched Earth (admittedly, maybe there will be - at least until he kills himself - and then peace will be acheived, I suppose)?
In short, what is it ultimately going to take for humanity to stop killing each other, and instead work together to go beyond...everything? Or, is it an impossible dream, and humanity is destined to die (or worse, spread throughout the Universe bring hate, distrust, anger, and vengence whereever it sets foot)? Finally, why is it that I can see this absurdity, and project it forward (and thus, not be stupid enough to join a killing machine) - yet others can't, and either do join the
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
He is part of the criminal shadow government of wet work spooks and blood profiteers who decided they knew better than the US people, and helped bring about "regime change" back then..He is a very dangerous person and should have been put in jail for life a long time ago, but we never had a real investigation about that hit other than jim garrison's work.
Well, then he's a perfect fit for this administration.
Cowards, traitors and murderers the lot of them.
Group A; "We want him out! Now!"
Group B: Fine, he's gone.
Group A: "NoooO! Not yet!!"
Welcome to US Government Politics 101.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
First you seem to link "pro-Israel hawks" (whatever that is) with the push for the invasion.
From wikipedia's account of the lead up to war (which corresponds with what I heard from the various news outlets prior to the war): Unfortunately there's no source, so I'll call it a draw (your word against Wikipedia's). And please don't try and use that it was from the Christian right as support for your "Zionist Christians" are in on it too - you don't know who sent the letter (unless you're willing to clearly state that you're off your rocker and label the whole evangelical Christian right as Zionist Christians).
Now this is easiest to disprove. Look at January 2003 from the wikipedia link or the direct reference which has the hard numbers. A February 9 2003, (just around the time the invasion occured, support for the war was generally around 66%. If the United Nations opposed it then the support dropped to 50% but rose to 57% if allies such as Great Britain and Italy joined. After the invasion, support was at 62%. In April, support was at 72% believing the war was justified, even without any proof of biological or chemical weapons.
An interesting factoid is that 63% of people believed Bush had supplied enough evidence for invasion and 55% believed Bush had demonstrated sufficiently that Iraq directly supported Al Qaeda.
Anyways, the rest of the Wikipedia article clearly shows that public support for the war was quite high before & after invasion.
So I clearly see your point of how it was the Jews (or some other pro-Israel lobby group) and not what the American public support at all.
Essentially what you've been doing in Iraq is fighting a proxy war for Bush Sr/Haliburton/defense contractors etc...
Overall, you just come off as a rambling conspiracy nut who blames Jews for Iraq.
On a personal note regarding Palestinians are people too, and they do deserve to live in peace - but so are and so do the people in Israel. However, I'm sure that you're skewing reality - it is the people who justify Palestinian suicide bombers, taking Israelis hostage, and calling for the destruction of the state of Israel are the ones who are labeled Anti-Semites.
This is not intended as any disrepect for your service in Desert Storm, but I have to wonder what counts as information "that's provided" in your world.
At least three months ahead of the invasion you could have already watched or read reports from a number of leading European, Australian, Canadian, and Asian news sources that the yellowcake documents had been determined by experts to be forged, the aluminum tubes were a mundane (non-nuclear) component, the hydrogen trailers were likely used for weather baloons, the long shed-things were not WMD facilities but used to raise chickens, and that the true report of biological WMD in Iraq was very old with subsequent verification during the Clinton administration that the WMD had been gotten rid of.
It's clear to me that when making a decision in 2003 you didn't try, but instead jerked your knee according to what was "provided" or put directly under your nose. Next time the war drums start beating, I suggest you and all the others who made the same mistake pull your heads out of Corporate America's newsy-tainment ass.
Not sure why you say "still minority" considering the dems got trounced in 04, but anyway...
The reason the democrats didn't win by much is that as a party, as bad as their opposition might be, they're not really much better. The party has virtually no ideas or plans for how to fix what's happening, rather its just complaining and finger pointing. Everyone is talking about how the republicans lost the election, not how the democrats won it. People are gonna realize awfully fast that some things are gonna get better (foreign policy- maybe), and some things are gonna get worse (taxes and spending- probably).
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.
It's not like they didn't try, we just kept our hand on our wallet this time.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
I remember a lot of arguments about why the US should or shouldn't invade Iraq. I don't recall a lot of people arguing that they didn't have WMD. There were arguments about whether an invasion was the "best" way to deal with the threat. There were arguments about the cost (blood, money, stability, prestige). There were arguments about just how much threat Iraqi WMDs actually posed to the US. But the idea that there weren't any WMDs was nowhere near the top of the list of arguments.
UN inspectors left Iraq just before Clinont had the place bombed in 1998. He did that because Saddam wasn't letting the inspectors do their work. Saddam didn't let those inspectors back in unti Bush threatened to invade the place and actually started building up forces in Kuwait. Even then, there were still indications that Saddam was playing shell games. He'd been uncooperative with the UN inspectors for years. In South Africa, when they chose to give up nuclear ambitions, the UN inspectors had no problems verifying that they'd done so. That's because South Africa was not trying to maintain a nuke program and wanted everyone to know that. Iraq under Saddam was a completely different story. He resisted the inspections the whole time. Unlike South Africa, there was no evidence that Saddam had made a good faith effort to get rid of his nuke program. Basically, even though the inspectors could not prove it, it looked like he was lying.
Even so, there were still good arguments against invading. I made some of them myself in arguing with friends at the time. But the assertion that the Bush administration knew there were no WMDs just isn't supported by the available evidence.
People who are angry at how this has turned out have lots of good arguments to choose from. The "WMD was a lie" argument just ain't one of those.
Actually this new leadership and the new body of lawmakers just elected has the opportunity to show the world that Americans don't deserve to be attacked (and therefore we won't). Your comments show that you're A. Ignorant and B. All you really know is what your favorite Fox News commentator tells you (which is COMMENTARY or OPINION, not FACT).
What have YOU done to prevent terrorism? Nothing, instead you use terms like 'islaminazi' and you chicken-hawk around--all that does is make people want to punch you in the fucking face. You're an idiot, your views suck and the fact that you still want to fight means you probably should be in jail because you're anti-social, anti-freedom and anti-me. With people like you in this country (and when people like you are given a loudspeaker), it's no wonder people want to blow us up.
I fear ALL you religious nutjobs--be you Christian, Muslim or Jewish. I fear ALL of you blind followers, you who trust people who are proven liars--all on blind faith. Your faith to stupid causes is not admirable. Your arrogance is not admirable and no one cares what you think any more, because you DON'T THINK. You spit out whatever useless facts that someone else tells you to. You might as well not be a person because you're not adding anything to society. You're taking away the valuable oxygen and food that could be used by someone to make the world a better place, where country music is about your dog and your whiskey again and not about some dead soldier. Think with your mind for once, and stop doing what your preacher/general tells you to. Sheep. Sheesh.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Considering those are direct translations of the captured Iraqi Documents... I don't see it, but ok. :) Can you at least identify the straws? Maybe the VX recipe? Maybe the Nuclear Instructions that were so rapidly taken down off the web earlier this week? Um, I dunno... but I know the guy doing the translations, and they are balls on, according to my husband who speaks and reads Arabic and Farsi. You admit you aren't an expert, so why do you think he's grabbing at straws?
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
Just to be sure, I'm not an Israeli or Palestinian. I'm not a Jew, a Christian, or Muslim. I'm an American, and it's always amazing to me to see how much American effort goes into protecting the interests of the Israeli state. (and the Big Oil companies, can't forget them.) What's also interesting is how much misunderstanding goes into any conversation along these lines.
So consider Palestine's situation. They are as legitimate a nation as any other. There are tons of border and land disputes in the world and Palestine is obviously not an exception. But they exist, they have sovereignty and are a democratic, legitimate state.
It is also worth noting: Palestine does *not* try to invade and expand into is neighbors for the purpose of getting more land. In fact, since its occupation in 1948, Palenstine has only responded to its neighbors declaring war on it (sometimes with extreme responses, it is true) but hasn't declared war first itself. Granted, one of those cases was a neighbor closing Palestine's access anywhere, which internationally is recognized as an act of war.
My point is: Palestine is fighting for recognition and survival. Its neighbor which attacks it is fighting to kill every Palestinian man, woman and child. They want its land. They want its people dead. Furthermore, a lot of the violence is carried out by military groups that have no accountability internationally. Palestine on the other hand has to answer to the world (or at least, they are a government that makes decisions and the world can hold Palestine accountable for them...there is nobody to even negotiate with or hold responsible on the Israeli side because nobody has any leadership or control over the military apparatus...it is all different factions).
Now, to address the point about U.S. media. Palestine is critized ALL THE TIME. In fact, my big complain with Fox News is that they always run Israeli human-interest stories and report on facts as "Israeli sources say" without giving any of the Palestinian perspective! CNN is the same way.
The international community certainly (or U.N.0 doesn't seem to be stepping up to say "Palestine has the right to exist as a Muslim state; we will defend this right". I mean, you can hate the muslims or not but your hatred shouldn't give you the right to kill them and take away their land does it?
As I said, it's scary how the same statements work for either side.
The Internet has no garbage collection
That's great, but Dershowitz is a member of AIPAC and begins his reply by tarring Walt and Mearsheimer with the anti-Semite brush by comparing them to David Duke. It is a petty and simplistic, even histrionic response to a measured and thoughtful piece. It does rather prove Walt's and Mearsheimer's point, though, that AIPAC does not discuss. It slanders, libels, defames, intimidates, and silences anyone who dares try to have an intelligent, reasonable, and respectful discussion that differs with AIPAC's world view.
Frankly, as it is written Dershowitz's piece does not rate equal footing with Walt and Mearsheimer's. Nor do I deem it my duty to present AIPAC's case, since theirs is the only case that ever gets heard in this country.
However, it was kind of you to put the link up for those who are interested.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
So Bush lied (again)?
What lie?
So let's see, first we lie about the invasion of Iraq being tied to the September 11th attacks.
Source?
Then we lie that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
Actually, we didn't lie. Believing something to be true that later turns out to be false is not lying.
Then we lied that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda.
Source? You can start here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp
It is the 21st century and the time for Klax has passed.
Gates is the president of Texas A&M University and a close friend of the Bush family. He served as director of the Central Intelligence for Bush's father from 1991 until 1993.
Great, another Bush yes-man! Oh, yeah, there is going to be real change, uh huh. This President is so freaking insular and one-track minded, it is frustrating in the extreme.
Currently hooked on AMP
Digg really isn't a good way to try get a feel for the public's mood when it comes to politics. While the model Digg uses may work well for other topics, politics is far too polarized. The majority of sane users avoid it like the plague, while the far left/right seem to flock to it like moths to a bug zapper.
AARP ain't the strongest lobby in Washington (and neither is AIPAC) and the majority of faculty at Harvard are clueless pimps! That said, the oil lobby is probably one of - if not the - most powerful. The primary reason Iraq was invaded was Saddam pledged plubicly he was going to switch to the Euro to sell his oil and he was going to double oil production. The secondary reason was the Busheviks considered this to be a good move to build up "political capital." (Go figure?!) And who the f**k bothers with Freud or Jung anymore.....
No person could ever have thought that Iraq would have a permanent democracy in six months.
My own feeling was that if we were lucky, we'd be able to secure Baghdad from Saddam's forces in 6 weeks to six months; by which time we could rightfully say that the "war" was over in the same sense Desert Storm was "over".
Now, to be honest, my feeling was that a weak government would take over, that we would not stay put, and that within 2-5 years, by democratic election or by coup, Iraq would slink back into 1)radical theocracy, 2) totalitarian dictatorship, or 3) some semi-functional central government which gradually becomes irrelevant.
Instead, we achieved a real democratic election, with a real constitution hard-won by the people, and a government that genuinely was the best that could be worked out by and for Iraqis. In short, they have self-determination, and they are learning how to keep it.
Even better, their neighbors in Iran, Syria, etc. are seeing this and envying them.
--
Now, to see a way forward, one has to actually look forward. One has to look at the 1200 year repression of the Shia, at the relative peacefulness of their theology, at the power-centered structure of the Sunni theology, at the positive experience the Kurds had governing themselves under the watchful eyes of the USAF for a decade. One has to be dissatisfied with the status quo of people dying by brutality or by starvation across the middle east forever now. And one has to look for possible solutions.
Or, one can take the intellectually vapid approach of saying, "George Bush doesn't speak fast enough, so he is dumb, so the war is wrong."
Back in the 90's certain Republicans complained the Bill Clinton only used military force to cover other problems. They could have thought about the fate and chances of the people of Bosnia, Iraq, wherever, but that takes work and compassion and study, and after all, who can be bothered with learning a 2500 or 4000 year old art.
Mearsheimer and Walt are not comparable to Jung and Freud. Their article isn't scholarship but political hackery.
I shouldn't have to say where I stand with regard to Israel, and I won't.
But this article is nothing new, nothing historical, and mostly polemical. Rather than tracing an arc of political dependencies, it involves innuendo, implicit justifications of political experdiency, and allegations of conspiracy and coercion.
That's not a historical and political analysis, that's junk.
Mearsheimer and Walt may be heroes to you because of this article, but that doesn't mean they have any real insight. This article could have been dreamt up at any time in the past 30 years.