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.
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
That strategy being bomb key locations (and some not-so-key ones just to be safe), then declare victory? I've seen Risk games with more strategy than that. WWII had strategy, this was barely practice for a real war.
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" ?
Militaries aren't designed for nation building.
they are designed to kill
thus the crux of the entire problem.
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...)
His strategy for war was mediocre at best. Rumsfeld was lucky enough to fight a war against a country 10 times smallert than USA (25 mil vs 300 mil population), with 20 times less money, 50 smaller army and weapons from 1980. In a traditional war you want competent people like Gen. Zinni and Gen. Shinseki, who were fired by Rumsfeld for, well, accurately predicting current disaster in Iraq.
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
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..."
You can not initially win a war. You either win or you lose. He and his cronies started a war that can not be won. What is worse, is that he's been planning this since the 80's.
Mr. Rumsfield and Mr. Bush started a war in Iraq for the wrong reason. What is worse is that in doing so, Rumsfield sought evidence to make his case, as oppossed to making his case around the evidence. Mr. Rumsfields was is, was, and will continue to be a disaster. For you to claim otherwise is absurd.
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 !
Militaries aren't designed for nation building. they are designed to kill thus the crux of the entire problem.
Which is what nobody seems to get nowadays. Does anyone think that had someone else been in charge they would have brought western style democracy to Iraq? Or has anyone woke up to the reality that you can't shove democracy down the throat of people who want Sharia?
What war?
I don't recall any declarations of war...
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
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
The only reason it wasn't obvious is because of the lies we were being fed.
I remember thinking "Why the fuck would we attack Iraq all of a sudden?". I still don't understand what made that moment in history the "right one" for invading a soverign nation.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Somebody else in charge would not have invaded Iraq when we needed to win the war in Afghanistan.
"Bringing western style democracy to Iraq" has never been more than a slogan to win elections. It worked like a charm for 2 in the US, including one presidential.
If Rumsfeld were a competent Defense Secretary, he would have protected the US by winning in Afghanistan and pursuing a counterintel global pursuit of our terrorist enemies. Not created a catastrophic distraction that alienated our allies and our own citizens from each other.
--
make install -not war
6.5 years ago, the entire world was telling the US there was no cause of warring on Iraq. There was no plausible link w/ 9/11, no WMDs to be found, no threat whatsoever.
When US did invade and then finally conceded there were no WMDs, the entire world went "told you so" while the US poked their ear drums going "Lalalalalala".
The obvious answer today was as obvious for the rest of the world back then.
But every time an outsider brings it up, it's "you're not with us you're against us" kinda crap. The US citizens were BS-ed out of reason into accepting this early on and now comes the time for the Bush family and their friends to account for what they did.
It's going to be a tough time for Gates to fix the situation. Let's hope his Iran/Contra dealings gave him enough experience...
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.
Only for Americans that were fed lies through their media. For nearly every other country on the planet the war was an unjustified fabrication - no one believed there were any WMDs in Iraq.
And for protesting the American government pushing through the war, other countries were villified. Next time when the entire world tells you that you are wrong, it might be a good idea to listen.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
On behalf of soldiers, sailors, and veterans everywhere: go fuck yourself. I did a much more technical job with cooler toys and better results than anything you've probably seen in your cushy civilian job, then came out and breezed through college. For every 1 stereotypical jackass I knew in the military, there were at least 5 experts in difficult tech fields.
Screw you and your misperceptions. The military hasn't been the way you described it in decades.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
From a semantics point of view, you are correct. The problem is that Bush uses "war" both in the semantics context (i.e. we are shooting them, they are shooting us) and in the legal context (i.e. Commander in Chief, broad war powers, etc.) Without that formal declaration, the legal context doesn't exist, and therefore the derivative powers don't exist.
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.
Your aggressive attitude just goes to prove my point.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
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.
Yeah, but House always gets good results.
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.
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.
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.
Of course it was an act. He doesn't have to "offer" anything; the president can fire him any time he pleases, and of course if he really wants to resign, no one can really make him stay on the job. An offered, but refused, resignation that is made public can only be politcal theater. There's no reason to tell anyone about it otherwise.
In the wake of a scandal, Rumsfeld in efect said "Don't blame the Prez, I take responsibility." to which Bush responded "No, no, we're in this together." Both get to act all big about accepting responsibility while implying it's not really their fault and not really having any consequences.
Now he resigns, and it is accepted, in response to what? The fact he'll soon be answering prickly questions in front of a House oversight committee, and it will be easier for the administration if he's not a current member.