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.
Good news: Rummy steps down.
Bad news: Replaced by former head of CIA Gates
captcha: eighth
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!
...not as Sec Def though.
This hit the frontpage of reddit, slashdot and digg all within 20 minutes of it being announced. Fastest I've ever seen.
Eitherway, this had to happen though and probably would have happened if the Democrats hadn't won the house.
MABASPLOOM!
"Sorry, Don, you go to the polls with the voters you have. They're not the voters you might want or wish to have at a later time."
- Dubya
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
Bringing new meaning to the (Red White and) Blue Screen of Death!
Oh wait, what? Bob Gates?
/Nevermind, then.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
I, for one, welcome anyone else that might replace him.
Fuck, at this point, I could just about support Kissinger!
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Glad someone wrote in to quote the headline on CNN.com: "President Bush announced today that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, is stepping down. Bush said he is nominating former CIA chief Robert Gates, who headed that agency from 1991 until 1993, to become the next secretary of defense." I feel like I read something worthwhile.
I happened to catch Fox News about 5 minutes before Bush's announcement began. They showed one of teh Fox News corrospondents standing outside the White House, talking about the impending announcement. If you listened really carefully, you could hear people in the background chanting "Na-na-nahh-na, na-na-nahh-na, hey, hey, hey...goodbye"
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
There are plenty of political websites for you to get your rocks off on.
Lets stick with technology related news.
Rumsfeld's resignation was timed such that Bush can force the nomination of his replacement through a Republican Senate. If he'd waited much longer, the Senate would be controlled by the Democrats and Bush might actually have to pick someone good.
Some things the good old boys network can't prevent. I'm sure he's in for a cushy life now, even though they couldn't save him there'll be board memberships and "consulting" jobs flowing in for the rest of his life.
I guess he's at least willing to do that with his own job...
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
This has certainly been an interesting 24 hours. I wonder if some
of the members of our current administration have heard the knock
of reality on the door. I can only hope so.
All that hand waving didn't help Ronnie ...
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
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.
I knew the GOP would offer up a sacrifical lamb for their thrashing yesterday, but damn - that was fast.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/arti
See subject.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!
I seriously doubt that this will make any difference. The only chance that Iraq has of being solved without it falling to Al Qaeda (or Iran), would be for us to put in 500-600K troops. And if W. was not bright enough to put in 250K troops AND rebuild the nation quickly, then I seriously doubt that he has enough character or intelligence to do what is right, now.
All in all, this will go down as the textbook way to not fight a war in American military schooling (and probably others).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Its astonishing how you can ignore historical experience, common sense and repeatedly be so utterly wrong and yet not get fired when you are one of Georges buddies.
A quick glance at some of the stuff Donald came out with makes you seriously question his mental state.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
i bet this guys motto was: "If all else fails, use C4"
Bob Gates was heavily involved in the treasonous Iran/Contra affair.
The names may change, but the characters remain the same.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_16.htm
Well, according to trickle-down theory, I should be getting my own loose-moral intern any day now!
Just junk food for thought...
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" ?
You think this because of a story they posted? The remarks are biased, not the report BTW: That is the worst stereo-type I have heard throughout this whole midterm
So, uh, wait a second. You're saying that Slashdot should report that Rumsfeld HASN'T stepped down?
I know you might want it to be so, but facts are not a partisan matter.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
In order to assign more meaningful names to the agencies of the federal government, I make a motion that the Dept. of Defense be called the Dept. of Offense and the Dept. of Homeland Security be called the Dept. of Defense.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure that this new guy is going to be any better. Why does a former CIA man make a better Secretary than..hmm...I dunno....a former GENERAL?
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.
I read recently that simulations done under the Clinton administration found that an invasion of Iraq and the subsequent "nation-building" would requite sustained troop levels of 400,000. Rumsfeld, completely lacking any understanding of the middle east, the culture, and peoples, figured we can do it on the cheap. Alas it tis not so. Kind of reminds me of when Brutus assasinated Caesar, he figured the people would be happy and cheer him. I honestly think Rumsfeld thought the Iraqi people would support him as Brutus thought.
Now we're paying the price. And much more than just troop loss (which is actually quite minimal, compared to other world conflicts, like, say WWII).
As opposed to which popular war?
Gimme a break. Go back and learn something about strategy, and try to write a sentence.
Being "tough and ruthless" in a democracy basically means you lie, cheat and steal. Rummy had all these qualities. Never having seen a day of combat in his life, despite being in the Navy, he goes on to... become the architect of an invasion?
He's been described as the "biggest obstacle in the fight on terrorism", despite his lies and his approval of torture. Maybe real success would tear into his oil or weapons profiteering (courtesy of Bechtel and its lucrative Iraq reconstruction projects, its ties to the bin ladens, etc. etc.). Or his fighting the supposed pandemic of bird-flu with his association with Gilead Sciences (a pharmeceutical that just happens to have a treatment).
I hope to never see his smug face on the news again.
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..."
Please, that is the least insightful post under this entire thread - pure flamebait.
In fact, there are tons of conservatives here on Slashdot. Just not very many social conservatives or authoritarians. Most of them are of a more libertarian bent.
In any case, I know plenty of conservatives who think it was way past time for Rumsfeld to go. Including my friend who worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority and US Embassy in Iraq for a year and a half (and just went back over there working as a liaison for the British government).
I'm a moderate Democrat, but I'll trust my friend's judgment on Rumsfeld over your flamebait any day.
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 !
It took a bit longer than anyone would have guessed, but at long last everyone in this photo has retired. I bet there will be some Kurdish street parties tonight.
Back to foxnews.com with you -- oh crap, it's on there too!
Why go for Bush Senior's man, when you could go for Henry Kissinger? He's the right man for our time, again.
(Well, I think it's funny.)
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
Gates has two years in the Air Force. I think they should have chosen someone who has a lot of experience in land warfare. Someone who understands what would be required for victory in Iraq. A military leader instead of a bureaucrat.
News for non-retards. Stuff that matters to intelligent, rational people...like non-NeoCons.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Well...maybe if Rumsfeld had studied harder in school...
...because I don't want ASS PRINTS ON MY DOOR!
(obligatory Futurama quote)
Libertas in infinitum
Loser....Loserrr.....Loserrrrr! God, that felt good! Rumsfeld should have gone for such an obstinate insistence on cutting other departments, countries, and the UN out of the post-war reconstruction and yet carried it out with the utmost incompetence by not sending enough troops, giving them with an incomplete set of tools, and then awarding no bid contracts to private contractors to assist in the security which cost more to the American taxpayer.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Don't let the insurgency hit you in the ass on the wa... oh.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
What lead you to believe otherwise?
My other question is: How did your post get moderated insightful when it's not actually true?
About damn time. It's unfortunate that it took the Republicans to LOSE A FOOTHOLD in order to make this guy do something he should have done a year ago when people were calling for his oust.
Now that his boss no longer has his iron grip, he's running because he knows he'll get the boot eventually.
No, don't quit when you realize you've made bad decisions costing American's their lives. Quit when you'll be forced to. Don't take responsibility until you MUST. What a disgrace. Democracy has prevailed here. So long...
Katherine Harass lost....
Sick Santorum lost....
And finally....Donald Dumbsfeld is fired
World Peace, At Last.
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
Texas Monthly's cover story this month was a good profile on Gates an his work as head of Texas A&M. See www.texasmonthly.com.
Even as cynical as I am about Karl Rove and the Bush Administration's disdain for the intelligence of the American people, Rumsfeld's resignation, and more specifically the timing of it, represents a new low for that crew. What, they think we can't figure out that they are trying (in vain) to distract the American people from the taking of both houses of Congress by Democrats, by placing a new news item at the top of CNN's Web page?
Rumsfeld was incompetent, and could very well face investigation and even charges, as could other senior members of the Administration. But don't read any more into today's announcement than crass political strategy. If Rumsfeld was unacceptable as Secretary of Defense today, he was at least as unacceptable last week, last month, and last year. Having this happen today is blatant and insulting. {Prof. Jonathan}
Insults are always intelligent and rational.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
If the problems in Iraq are primarily due to Rumsfeld's tactical and strategic flaws, then this will help. If the war is a problem of the world not conforming to the beliefs of the NeoCon segment of the Administration (and the President's lack of questioning of the beliefs or his insistence on them), then Rumsfeld's resignation won't really help - if no one in power wishes to hear or deal with bad news, then nothing any Secretary of Defense says or does will be welcome.
"News for non-retards. Stuff that matters to intelligent, rational people...like non-NeoCons."
I've only ever encountered one neocon on Slashdot, and it is been ages since he has posted. None have posted yet in this Rumsfeld news item.
Where were you when the voynix came?
My guess is Bush threw Rumsfeld to the wolves to appease Nancy Pelosi, but I could be wrong.
I spent more than nine years in the military, most of it infantry - I was a professional bullet stopper. During the first Gulf War we walked across the border with 410,000 troops and are now operating with a bit more than a third of that. The only way to win a war is to win it - otherwise let's get the hell out and quit sacrificing our young men and women in an unwinnable conflict.
I supported the war based on the information that was provided - and that information turned out to be a bit less than accurate. Right now we either need to win the war or get the hell out and quit sacrificing troops when there aren't enough to effect any real change in Iraq.
Right or wrong, we're neck-deep in it now. Let's either win this damn thing or get the hell out of it. We can impeach Bush later if it seems appropriate.
And it seems appropriate.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Bush knew several days ago that Rumsfeld was going to resign. He stated exactly the opposite. It's yet another lie from this administration. Thank god this one didn't kill anyone.
- Walsh Iran / Contra Report
Developers: We can use your help.
"Bush has a new puppet"
Uh. No shit? That statement is meangingless. As if anyone on a presidential cabinet is not a "puppet". Come on. It doesn't matter who the president is, or whether you agree with them or not; anyone on a presidential cabinet is going to be a puppet to the president.
Are you implying that, say, William Cohen was NOT Clinton's puppet? I find that absurd.
I'm not a fan of Rummy or Bush, but I find your rhetoric without merit. If you are trying to knock Bush or Rumsfeld, then you have failed. Try using a statement with meaning, rather than attempting to degrade with useless buzzwords that apply across the board.
Or do you honestly believe that Rumsfeld was the ONLY member of a cabinet to be a "puppet"?
Any information may be true or incorrect depending on your perception of said information
"Old American Century, with Habeus Corpus and without torture. Don't you ?"
Which century was that? It sure wasn't the 20th or the 19th even.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"...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
Oh, it's better than that. Bush said last week that no matter what happens, Rumsfeld would stay on until the end of his term (in 2008). Today was a huge flip-flop.
Isn't Bolton only a temp, because Bush posted him during a senate break, because he couldn't get the votes he needed to make Bolton the permanent ambassador to the UN? Looks like Bush is losing the Senate and I don't think that bodes well for Bolton or any more of Bush's high-handed picks.
As for Gates. They'll probably try to run that through before the losers are out of the Senate.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I think the problem is that some Iraqi people have a different agenda from Rumsfeld. Participation is happening but on a whole number of different agendas. Some people are participating in the building of Rumsfeld's vision, and some on completely different visions. Hence the conflict.
Winning a military victory over Saddam's army was only the start, not all of it and I think that's where a lot of people got it wrong. They say generals always fight the last war, but the liberation of France in 1944 was several wars ago....
I was just thinking that, now that the republican monopoly is over (for now anyway), a good step two would be to start trying to get rid of the pesky USA PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act.. but Rumsfeld stepping down works as well. Onward, to step three!
I am speaking of how little force he used, and how widely dispersed our forces were throughout the nation. He was smart enough to realize that the army needed a flatting on its control structure, and that decisions can be made at a quicker rate at a lower level in the chain of command.
Realizing this, and then going about and implementing it, was an excellent move on his part.
I do not agree with much else he has done, but as a
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
The obvious answer now is no different than it was 6.5 years ago.
Repeat after me: There we no Weapons of Mass Destruction! It was a lie then. It remains a blatant lie today.
Second:
"Underserved flak"? This coward who used the blood of other people's children to assert his manhood long after his opportunity had passed, managed to destroy a military force that had already demonstrated its inferiority to the US military machine in 1992. No, sir, he deserves all the flak coming his way and more.
Third:
"Unjustified investigations"? Are you insane? Why did all those people, on both sides die in Iraq? Why is Iraq falling into the guagmire of civil war, just as the critics of his bullshit plan predicted? Where is Osama? Where is the connection between Osama and Saddam?
Oh, sure, you can claim he made the world safe by taking down a dictator. Just try telling that to the Iraq people as they bury more people in a single day than Saddam killed.
Oh, one more thing. Rummy did a GREAT JOB telling the world that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you better get some quick like North Korea, or you'll end up like Iraq. See Iran for more on this subject.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
AIPAC, which Rumsfeld has strong links to, was. AIPAC is the second most powerful lobby in Washington behind the AARP, and is composed of pro-Israel hawks and zionist Christians. Wolfowitz, Perle, and many other members of the Bush administration are deeply linked to them as well. AIPAC represents hard-line Israeli interests. (Incidentally they're also the reason why you never hear criticism of Israel in the United States of America, because they actively and tirelessly lobby government, academia, and the media to suppress our freedom to speak honestly about and discuss openly the situation there. Their favorite tactic against people who make outrageous statements like "Palestinians are people too, and they deserve to live in peace," is to call them "anti-Semites" and target them for character assassination.)
r wp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf>
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002 that "the campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."
It's overstating it a little to say that we invaded Iraq on AIPAC's orders. There were other parties who went along, but AIPAC was centrally involved. And what AIPAC wants from Washington, it gets. This despite a huge portion of the American public who opposed the invasion and even despite American Jewish opinion, 52-62% of whom opposed the invasion.
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the giants of international relations (they're like the Freud and Jung of the discipline), published a remarkable paper on the subject last March: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/
Essentially what we've been doing in Iraq is fighting a proxy war on Israel's behalf (on behalf of Likud and other Israeli hawks, that is). It's also why Bush started making noises at Syria recently before things really started to fall apart in Iraq, because they're next on AIPAC's list. Iran comes after that.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
And wasn't it Rumsfeld who said that he had no intention of quitting and that Bush had given him his full support and would decide if and when Rumsfeld should leave? Oh yeah, here it is.
So let's see, first we lie about the invasion of Iraq being tied to the September 11th attacks. Then we lie that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Then we lied that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. Throw in that we lied about not being the world's policeman, that we wouldn't be involved in nation building, that we would hold it to the Saudis in regards to our supply of oil, that the government isn't reading people's emails or searching their homes without warrants, and now this, and you have an entire administration built on lies.
Unfortunately, even with the Democrats taking control of the House, they've already said they don't have the balls to impeach the liar so we're stuck with another two years worth of lies.
yay
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Oh, right. It's a contrary opinion. Now this, this post right here that you are reading, could be a troll. But not the parent. _____________________ Think. Then type.|
Any information may be true or incorrect depending on your perception of said information
But was not accepted. This time it was.
I for one am looking forward to Rummy's presentation with the Medal of Freedom and the his presidential pardon "even though he committed no crime."
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.
Well, there was, but not the one we all are thinking of. 6.5 years ago was roughly May 8th, 2000.
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.
1. He should have been allowed to leave on the 1st one and not used as some political posturing move
2. Loaded question as hell. But lets point out our democracy has had more than a few problems lately in true representation of the will of the people. Are there Americans at fault, absolutely, are they the general populace...not really, at best you can blame 51% of the populace for the shenannagins going on, but really its our representives doing a piss poor job of representing us. 3. Given his dealings with Saddam and crew, I can kinda understand why there may be some sketchy feelings about this guy in that part of the world. Is he making them fight...not exactly. But did the Rodney King verdict MAKE people go out rioting and looting? Not really, just the reaction to the stimulus happened to go that way. I think the key here is there would probably be much less fighting over there if America's involvement in the middle east didn't have so much dirty dealing going on. Unless you forget almost all of the problems we have over there are largley our own doing. Kerry gets nailed for flipflopping (I don't like Kerry either, just making a point) but it was Rummy who "Supported Saddam before I didn't support Saddam", it was the US that bailed in Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated leaving the Taliban to fill a void in a wartorn country, it was the US that mucked in Irans government and got caught leading to the anti-US regime being able to take power. There are a whole gang of people and groups over there that need to be beaten with a large stick and hard for being worthless pricks, but we need to have alot more integrity ourselves in our dealings with that for it to ever mean anything other than continued bloodshed and constant replacments of new evil dictator types.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
One horseman down, three to go.
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.
The Joos run everything! The Joos control the media! The Joos control our government! The Joos are responsible for fluoridating our drinking water and contaminating our precious bodily fluids!
The only thing the Joos don't run is the UN, which is why the UN today is staunchly anti-Israel and supports those who have pledged to work towards its destruction.
Yes, Rumsfield is making the Sunni's and Shitte's fight! They would surely get along just fine if America wasn't involved in the middle east!
Perhaps you are missing something in your sarcasm. Historically they should have known these groups were going to fight. They are not Iraqis until the 40's. Before that they were Sunni, Shia, et al. I dont know of a single Palestinian who considers him/herself Israeli.
Is that the fault of the Americans?
Absolutely. For choosing ignorantly to destabalise the place. Civil war aside, name a war in the last 150 years where the initiatere of the war acheived their intended goal of starting the war? You might be able to name one or 2, but in the scheme of all the wars fought, the chance of success is small historically.
Or are the Iraqi people causing their own suffering?
As mentioned above, they dont see themselves as Iraqi.
The timing says everything. With the potential for his agenda to be advanced now gone, he cuts and runs. A good man would have stayed on to finish the job properly no matter how stressful.
Umm... who cares. People complain about him when he was in office and complain because he is leaving. Its like digging for something just to dig. The man is gone, too bad we cannot undo the damage he has done.
Not sure what others think, but the negative affect this has on us foreign relations will last decades. It will only go away if the US gets back following international law and leading as example. But thats an entire new line of discussion.
Instead of Baptist vs. Methodist, think Catholic vs. Protestant. Then think 30 Years' War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Year_War
There's probably better analogies, and let's hope Iraq doesn't take 30 years.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I think he's made great strides in transforming our military, against a massive entrenched beaucracy.
Being independently wealthy, he didn't need the job, and was free to say or do what he felt was right.
As SecDef, he's right up there with Cap Weinberger.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
While there is still a ways to go, the US Military (and most other Western militaries) are in the process of doing just that.
Google for the term "strategic corporal" for some interesting reading.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
...to replace Rumsfeld. That would have sent a strong message that the administration believes it's time to push AIPAC down a well.
1. He should have been allowed to leave on the 1st one and not used as some political posturing move
Is it political posturing or is Bush responding to the will of the people? I thought Bush should have let Rummy go a long time ago as well, but considering the timing, Bush isn't posturing for anything. He doesn't have to get elected again, and I doubt Rummy will mean much in the grand scheme of things come 2008.
2. Loaded question as hell. But lets point out our democracy has had more than a few problems lately in true representation of the will of the people.
How so? Voter Fraud? Long Lines at the election polls? You can honestly go back 40-50 years and find similar if not worse things going on. As for the will of the people, when so many don't vote, don't care, and have little interest in politics other than re-electing the shmuck who brings money and pet-projects back to their homestate what do you expect?
Are there Americans at fault, absolutely, are they the general populace...not really, at best you can blame 51% of the populace for the shenannagins going on but really its our representives doing a piss poor job of representing us.
You can blame anyone of voting age.
3. Given his dealings with Saddam and crew, I can kinda understand why there may be some sketchy feelings about this guy in that part of the world. Is he making them fight...not exactly. But did the Rodney King verdict MAKE people go out rioting and looting? Not really, just the reaction to the stimulus happened to go that way. I think the key here is there would probably be much less fighting over there if America's involvement in the middle east didn't have so much dirty dealing going on.
I'm quite certain, that if America pulled all of their troops out of the middle east, there would be a lot of fighting over there over the next 10-20 years. The big difference would be that Americans wouldn't be getting killed or wasting money. Of course the wasting money thing is debatable, how much would a restricted oil flow out of the middle east cost us?
Unless you forget almost all of the problems we have over there are largley our own doing. Kerry gets nailed for flipflopping (I don't like Kerry either, just making a point) but it was Rummy who "Supported Saddam before I didn't support Saddam",
Sure, the US supported Saddam during the cold war. I'm happy we won that one, so I really don't mind.
it was the US that bailed in Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated leaving the Taliban to fill a void in a wartorn country,
Yup, and so we should have surrendered in the cold war rather than drain the Russian budget via proxy wars?
it was the US that mucked in Irans government and got caught leading to the anti-US regime being able to take power.
Yeah, that was quite a mess.
There are a whole gang of people and groups over there that need to be beaten with a large stick and hard for being worthless pricks
But who should do the beating?
but we need to have alot more integrity ourselves in our dealings with that for it to ever mean anything other than continued bloodshed and constant replacments of new evil dictator types.
There will be war in the middle east for a long time to come regardless of what we do over there. Not being involved might be a good idea, but of course if the whole region turns into an islamic empire we will pay at the pump, and perhaps eventually have to fight a larger war.
You're not looking anywhere near closely enough.
Anyone read Bob Woodward's latest book? Sheesh, this resignation (or push) has come far too late . Iraq is in meltdown, Shia militias allowed to join the police and Baghdad riddled with these 'police mandated' death squads taking revenge on Sunnis (Saddam is a Sunni). An ordinary MP in Baghdad needs 50-100 bodyguards and a bunch of armoured cars to move 1/2 mile in the city.
Anybody with half a brain (and here I exclude Dubya and Tonee...) could have seen 'democracy' in Iraq was not a viable proposition - at least not on the basis that Dubya and Tonee envisaged it. What if 'free' elections had lead to radical mullahs taking over as in Iran? What? We're going to meddle in the process to stop that from happening? Where was the data showing such a scenario was not a possibility? And in Baghdad, there is a radicalised politician, the Finance minister, with his own private army the eponymous Mahdi army, funded by corrupt siphoning of US reconstruction monies. To which a politically expedient blind eye has been turned, mostly by Rumsfeld.
What a catastrophe the guy has been.
Perhaps you are missing something in your sarcasm. Historically they should have known these groups were going to fight.
Many people knew that before they invaded, and I recall it being written about quite extensively.
They are not Iraqis until the 40's. Before that they were Sunni, Shia, et al.
I think you are the one missing something here. They are Iraqis, and they consider themselves Iraqis (I'm friends with one.). It's just that they consider themselves Sunni, Shia, Christians, and Kurds first, Iraqis second.
I dont know of a single Palestinian who considers him/herself Israeli.
That is a different situation
Blackadder: Percy, this is a very difficult situation.
Percy: Yes, my lord.
Blackadder: Someone's for the chop. You or me in fact.
Percy: Ah yes.
Blackadder: Let's face facts Percy....it's you!
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.
Recently, the US military released a major leader of the insurgents at the request of the Iraqi puppet premier/head thug . It was a very bad military decision. So bad in fact, it must have come from Bush not Rumsfield. It will cost many US lives and prolong our presence in the country. I suspect he left for that and similar decisions; not from media pressure.
In other news Israel and Syria are both preparing for full scale war perhaps as soon as ten months. The shrillness of the soon to be speaker of the house will assure that America is not prepared for it or worse. We should be positioning several tank divisions near the border with the call up (recruitment?) of at least another 100,000 to 500,000 soldiers. Taking out Syria would be the next step towards diminishing Iran's influence. But again we are not prepared (both militarily nor is the US public prepared).
Back to building that nuclear fallout shelter...
The parent post is totally right on the money. Deputy Secretaries seem to be much more influential that most people like to think. Wolfowitz is a total war hawk and it was because of his viewpoints that put Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz at odds with Powell/Armitage. IMO Rumsfeld is more of a shrewd business man who was only following the president's policies. However, those policies were strongly enforced if not also influenced by Wolfowitz's policies.
The parent also makes a subtle point. A person does not need to be in a position if he already has the ear of the President. Current "unofficial" advisers such as Bush 1.0 (his daddy) and Newt Gingrich are people who make me concerned.
Well, Rummy's runnin'
...
Now to get Shrubby to skedaddle
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?
Good deal. And Rumsfeld resigning is way better news than moonbat Pelosi running the House. God help us all.....
The even sadder fact is that it takes thousands of soldiers and innocents dieing before anyone gets off their ass and votes intelligently.
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...)
I'm curious what strategy you are referring to.
Tommy Franks had a strategy for defeating the Iraqi army. But any person who was thinking with his head instead of his glands understood the military dimension of the problem was far larger than defeating an army. It's depressing to consider all the completely predictable things that have happened in the post invasion phase, for which we had absolutely no plan in place.
The administration paid some lip service to the idea that the road to victory might include some surprises, but they did nothing concrete to prepare for completely predictable and likely occurances, much less the unexpected. In fact, they attacked the character and patriotism of anybody who had the temerity to suggest that more was involved in victory than destroying a rather rag-tag army, dancing in the streets, and a speedy exit leaving a grateful populace and friendly government in place.
General Shinseki lost his job just for saying we needed more troops to establish order in the post-invasion period. Paul O'Neill, the Treasury secretary, lost his job for saying that the total cost of war and reconstruction would be in the billions. Those of us citizens who raised the "q" word were castigated as unpatriotic people who wanted the terrorists to kill Americans.
There was no real plan for victory in Iraq, there is still no real plan for victory in Iraq. I've read the administration's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq", and while it has some good points, what it is is unfortunately lacking is an actual strategy. It's the same story as when we were thinking about going in: there were things we wanted to happen, but no critical assessment of what was needed to make those things happen. Nor was there any consideration of what to do if they didn't happen. How can anything like this be called a "strategy"?
In the absence of strategy, what we are left with is trying like hell and hoping for some good luck. While these are elements of any victory in a tough struggle, waiting to see what the enemy will try and then reacting is not a strategy. It is sticking out our nose and inviting the enemy to punch it any time he wants.
How could Rumsfeld have been trapped into such a hopeless course? Rumsfeld is not a stupid man (nor is the President). He's worse than stupid: he's arrogant. The dictionary defines arrogance "Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others." Another definition of arrogance is "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions". Notice the common use of "assumption". Arrogance is a failure to admit your potential weaknesses. If you can't admit your weaknesses, you can't plan to work around them. If you don't plan to work around them, you don't have an effective strategy.
Case in point: the whole doctrine the Bush administration has about force restructuring. There's good stuff in there, but it's not the right stuff for a job like Iraq. The kind of smaller, more agile, and highly lethal armed forces they imagined would be a good thing -- to support a policy of containment. But they never questioned whether it was a good way to organize for a nation building mission. As a result, we take a military whose great strength is agility, and force them to stay put, making them an easy target for opportunistic attacks. Not only are they sitting ducks, they're sitting ducks with highly lethal reflexes sitting in the middle of a civilian population.
At this point, there is no realistic possibility of anything like the exit scenario the Bush Administration hoped for. That's realism: you can't screw up that badly wihtout somebody paying the consequences. Rumsfeld is not particulary responsible for the strategic disarray in US policy, it
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yes, you can pardon someone before they are charged as, notably, Ford did for Nixon.
And the saddest fact of all? Even after all the blood spilled, the democrats only won many of their races by a small margin, indicating that a large, though still minority, population of the US still very much supports Bush and the neocons.
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.
And how many of those toy were made to "detect" , "kill" and/or "maim" a potential enemy/target ?
And how many of those toy were made for peace keeping (read : not bluntly killing) and rebuild, diplomacy ?
Don't bother answering, the response in your tone is self evident. Too bad you completly missed the point of the GP and let your aggressivity out. Ho wait, that was TOO a point of the GP.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
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.
Moderation -1
100% Troll
TrollMods never say die. Which is why we destroy them with elections, rather that try to use their accursed rings against them.
--
make install -not war
Wow. He vacated fast. The place is empty already except for the billiards room. That is one tacky billiards room. No wonder he left the pool table.
SiO2
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.
1) The Dems in the majority would have raised hell until he was removed, essentially forcing his removal in a very public way. In this way the GOP can save face.
2) By doing this themselves the GOP can say in 2 years once Iraq has gotten better (by replacing a big contributor to the problem) that it was their action (the GOP action) that made Iraq get better and not the Dems. They're action to replace Rumsfeld is what made the Iraq situation better. The change puts the GOP in the position to pull the blow the wind out of the Dems' sails in 2 years.
Either way in 2 years the GOP is still in a good position from a PR perspective. They can now lay claim to any good the Dems do in Iraq. Crafty bastards.
He stepped down at the end of Bush's first term, but Bush insisted that he stay.
Funny thing is the Koran says to "kill the unbelivers" and as far as I can tell both of these groups ARE beleivers!
Are there pertinent distinctions between being an unbeliever, a disbeliever, and a nonbeliever?
Can one be an anti-believer?
(De-believer? a-believer? e-believer? iBeliever? You believe her?)
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
As a student at Texas A&M (where up until 3 hours ago Robert Gates was president) I'd like to be the first to state how happy we are to see a change of leadership on campus. The rest of the country may be in trouble however...
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Ah, the last time a man named Gates was in control of something big, powerful and American, we got... Microsoft!
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
The clan comes first, even ahead of their religious faction.
From One Nation, Divisible:
Oh, what, you say? The Democrats won? Well then America has spoken and we finally have a clean election!! Hurrahh!!
Huh?
Army Times isn't an official Army publication, it's a trade rag (like, say Zdweek) published by the USA Today group, if I'm not mistaken.
Rumsfeld is an accessory to Saddam's war crimes for selling him poison gas and sat maps which allowed Saddam to kill his people. Remember this photo that was taken around the time of the offences? http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/02/rumsfeld-s addam.jpgpf8qfo.jpg
And Gates is a old Iran Contra criminal. How many of these old Iran Contra criminals can fit in the White House anyway?
Now we're paying the price. And much more than just troop loss (which is actually quite minimal, compared to other world conflicts, like, say WWII).
Something important there. Name one military invasion and occupation of another country that size that has had as low a troop loss. Proportionally or direct.
Over the last few decades the US has shown an ability to perform military actions with amazingly low levels of troop loss. Anyone who thinks this not the case is entirely ignorant of history.
For example, in Vietnam in 19966 alone some 5,000+ soldiers lost their lives. From the start of the invasion to November 8th the US Iraq total is 2832 (with 7 awaiting confirmation).
While I as a former special operations man applaud this acheivement, it does have it's penalties. In particular the people. The People seem to think that any troop loss is major and quite frankly it isn't. We need perspective. Sadly, most of you who have never served, or never served in combat operations and put your own neck on the line, have no idea what is really going on and what the troop loss means.
In my opinion those of you who claim that leaving is the only way to "honor" the lives lost are no better than those who insist that hard-nosed staying the course is the only way to "honor" them. Speaking as one who has been shot at and had artillery dropped on my postion the way to honor those who had their lives taken is not so simple. First, you never blame those who sent you for the lives lost, always place the blame on those who took the life. Second, if the objective is just, complete the objective. And third, if leaving is likely to cause more problems in the long run, you finish the job. Sadly, both of the vocal sides of this Iraq argument get it wrong.
As someone who has been trained in tactics and strategy and has experienced their results firsthand, civilians have no idea what can be done with a small well-trained force. As I see it more troops won't do much good against a "terrorist" style enemy. Guerilla fighting versus set-piece nearly always results in a failure to eliminate the enemy by the set-piece side. The larger the sittign force the higher the casualties and the higher the risk. Every combat soldier requires 3-4 support personnel. With large forces these support personnel need to be "in-theatre".
When you read the report about that alleged study, did you note that the 400,000 figure includes support personnel, or was that even reported? My supposition is the latter. Given the ratios I've given above, do you realize how small the number of combat troops is? In the Clinton era the average ratio of support to combat troops was 4:1. Do you realize that the current number of combat troops in Iraq is rather similar? IIRC we officially have about 120K combat troops in-country. Today the ratio is in the neighborhood of 2.8:1. Do the math.
As of 2004 US Active Duty Army consisted of about half a million. That includes support troops. If the report was claiming 400K combat troops to occupy a country the size of California it has serious flaws. Not the least of which is the fact we don't have that many. However, I am extremely sceptik that the report made such a claim. It would be tantamount to making the claim that the US military is not capable of occupying a country the size of California.
Additionally, the restructuring of the US Army from a set-piece dominant Divisional Army to a much more flexible and lean Brigade Army makes troop requirement assumptions form prior to the reorganization non-comparative. A division requires and maintains a much higher level of support crew than a brigade does. Deploying a couple brigades requires fewer overall troop levels than deplaying a full division. If done well the deployment of "sister brigades" results in yet lower troop levels due to more efficient support lines.
Anytiem you see a pundit or worse yet a politician talking about "requried troop levels" to support an occupation of Iraq or other country, be suspicious. It is like comparing total vulnerability reports for two Internet web browsers: smoke and mirrors.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
The Texas A&M football team hasn't beaten U. of Texas since 1999!! Come on, that's even worse than Colorado's record with Nebraska over that last 10 years. If Dr. Gates can't put a team together to win rivalries, how can we hope for him to get our generals together to win in Iraq? I'm afraid we'll be on the loosing end again on our outstanding US-Iran rivalry.
I think the timing was meant to keep their base optimistic and voting. Rumsfeld stepping down is taken by most as an admission of failure, and some of the Republican base were living in a bubble where things in Iraq were improving and Republicans would keep control of Congress. The rosy electoral predictions from top Republicans were for the same reason - to keep morale as high as possible among their base and thereby limit the loss of seats as much as possible.
I tried to put a tag but screwed up (damn HTML...).
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.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/search/index.php
All those billions down the tube - one wonders if Rummy's going will make any difference to the rate of spend or how it's spent? I like this bit:
"The propaganda keeps quiet about the torture of prisoners in secret jail cells, and about the infiltration of the security forces by sectarian militias. These activities are overseen by the Interior Ministry, which reportedly employs at least a thousand ghost employees, whose wages amount to more than $1 million a month. The US Embassy has lost track of the weapons, radios and other hardware it has supplied over the past two years, and the auditors talk of 'uncertain property ownership' and 'political difficulties'. The ministry's audit director, who is responsible for police activities throughout Iraq, has six staff and one computer. Much of the equipment intended for government use is probably with sectarian militias, or has been sold."
I like to see Unca Sam's tax dollars at work - but selling weapons to kill it's own soldiers? It's a blooddy farce I tells ya. And Rummy should be in jail.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
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
I say it is posturing just due to timing, because he has to save face with the new Democrat controlled Legislative if he wants any more of his pet projects to go through
Voter fraud is the voters cheating, Election fraud (the rampant problem we are starting to see) is people mucking with the election. You are absolutely right about people not voting, but its not so cut and dry. I have a friend that wants to vote but can't due to felon status...for driving w/o a license 3x because she had to go to work and they refused to do a restricted license. Voter intimidation tactics have been showing up lately as well. You also have the problem of lots of people disenfranchised due to things like election fraud, or the fact that both candidates running are scum. Then there is my personal reason for not voting frequently, I won't vote for a candidate I don't support, and when its lying bought scum running vs lying bought scum I just don't vote for either of them.
You are right on the voting age thing, except you can't really blame the people that voted against it, or chose not to vote (chosing not to vote is different from apathetically not voting).
It is ENTIRELY too late for a pullout. We just need to change how we deal with that part of the world in a big way. They don't trust us and with very good reason. Anyone in that area seen as supporting us is going to catch alot of hate and hostility from their neighbors. Osama's original major gripe with us was that the Saudis asked us to fight the gulf war and told Osama to leave. Osama being of a muslim variety persecuted by Saddam he believed it was HIS war, and his countrymen asked infadels to come fight instead of him, it was a huge insult to him
It was the Iraq Iran war, not Cold War. Granted I'm sure ties can be drawn, but to follow the long chain you can trace parts of the Cold War all the way back to the War of 1812. We supported that insane dictator killing Iranians, no real reason for Iran to be inclined to deal with us.
No, its great that we won that. My point is we shouldn't have bailed out on a war torn nation afterwards. We should have been a good ally and helped them recover rather than leaving them to the inevitable warlords taking power and forming the Taliban. And then we shouldn't have been dealing with the Taliban for pipeline deals and the like. Had we helped them recover they would be in infinetly better shape, we probably wouldn't have the state sponsored terrorism problem in that area, and guess what, we probably would have been much better off economically in the long run since Russia wanted that area to build a giant oil pipeline to a warm water port. Granted it would have taken a bit of forsight to realize "hey, we won't be at war with Russia forever, and I bet if we have a good ally here WE can jointly build that pipeline and profit" rather than "Hey look, Russia sells oil now, lets go back to that shithole and try to deal with those lunatics to see if we can't bleed them on an oil pipeline"
Who should do the beating, now if that isn't the question of the century. Unfortunately there are too many conflicting political and economic, mostly economic interest in that area to get the rest of the world to agree to punish all of them equally. Entangling Alliances and all that all over again.
You are right, but we can thank British Imperialism for a great deal of that. Brutal oppresion and all of that, carving up the land, displacing people. That area of the world has been the envy of everyone for a long time, first it was THE major trade intersection for over half the world, and then oil became important and the stakes got even higher. Everyone wanted to control that little slice of land, so unfortunately the people who kinda started there have been being attacked by EVERYONE trying to steal their wealth and their land. Yeah, they have the oil, but everyone has the products that are made from or use the oil. So if we find an alternate source of power, or just quit sellin
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
On behalf of the grateful people of this nation (approx 50%), I salute you in the only way I know how!
May you and your brothers be blessed beyond comprehension.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
Let me review timelines... Star Trek DS9 started in the Mid 1990's, long before this current mess.
So now the Iraqis (Bajorans) hate the occupiers who want material resource supplies (Cardiassians) and are fighting a resistance movement with everything they have. The intensely religious backdrop of DS9 matches perfectly with the intense religous backdrop of Iraq. So in 2009, when W. is repudiated, America ceases involvement, we'll start to see all these human interest stories about the rebuilding of Iraq after the occupation. Oops. Are we on the wrong side of the stereotypical plot?
Anyone else think that show deserves a new look?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Just to change the story, i.e. Dem Victory...Just wanted to say as well that when Rummy made his go to war with the army you have comment, in response to the question about lack of armor for the HumVees. A good SecDef would have said "good point about the armor, I'll go down to the motor pool and kick some @ss, you go buy as much scrap metal as you can (and let me say that right after the invasion I think there was alot of scrap metal hanging around)." But instead of acknowledging the problem and then at least trying to fix it,all he did was fix the blame.
It is interesting that you prove Walt and Mearsheimer's point, that anyone who criticizes Israel is libeled and slandered as an anti-Semite, as you have done.
If you will revisit my original post, I pointed out that AIPAC comprises hawkish Jews and evangelical Christians. I also pointed out that AIPAC does not represent all Jewish opinion in Israel nor America. Therefore a criticism of AIPAC can only reasonably be called a criticism of AIPAC, and not a blanket statement about any ethnic group or religion.
You are therefore over-using the term anti-Semite to mean "anyone you disagree with." If you keep doing that, the word will lose its power and real anti-Semitism that advocates the destruction of Israel or killing of Jews, both loathesome goals, will not be addressed. As a final etymological note, Arabs are also a Semitic people, so calling them "Islamic fanatics" is itself anti-Semitism.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
A-fucking-parrently the admin's around here didn't get the fucking joke. THAT was supposed to be Donnies reaction to the house and senate turning democratic. And that regardless of his choice to flee, he'd still be responsible with answering to subpoenas. Pfft, use your bloody insight next time before modding shit that's 100% ONtopic with an offtopic flag.
This sig will self destruct in 5 seconds.
I've seen a lot of political news on Slashdot. Why is that? I come here for tech news. There are millions of other news sites where I can read about elections, resignations, etc. What's more, I can read dozens of other sites that loft allegations, spread rumors and conspiracy theories, etc. This isn't Moveon.org, it's slashdot.
I agree with you. YOUR arrogance is not admirable indeed!
An overzealous Dem supporter, I assume - I wouldn't mod you down, but I would disagree with the sentiment.
It's not the Dems getting what they want, it's Americans. It's hard to tell since at the moment the biggest thing both groups want is the Republicans out of power.
As to whether it's a good thing? Unequivocally. The one-party rule has resulted in a mountain of corruption and one - maybe two - quagmire wars. Obviously a balancing force is needed.
Now, if the Dems move to one-party rule in 2008 - that's the time to be asking whether it's a good thing. The bottom-feeders who corrupted the Republicans have no party loyalty - they're just drawn to power.
Last post!
Granted. It just annoyed me. I don't really care.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
It's a mess - it's too late for blame, but a lot of the lies were obvious to those far away from it all.
Title says all
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
You can't tell me that since a new leadership and new body of lawmakers are elected that terrorists will decide America is ok and shouldn't be attacked. The people who blow up trains, buses, planes, and buildings filled with innocent civillians don't care a whole lot about the political composition of the Congress. You can't reason with people who think blowing up commuters is an acceptable method of conveying a message because they are unreasonable.
espo
More than 1 time, more than 1 place-- THIS congress was called a do-nothing-congress. This said when they had control and were in a hurry to push some stuff to look good before this election.
Losing control at this point does not change things for them other than they now have to deal with some oversight.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The United States is an economic and cultural machine that touches almost every part of the world. The economics drives that reach. And our culture is pervasive. The United States is a threat to other cultures. And there are those who will see that threat as a reason to take up arms. You are not going to stop attacks on the US through a change in political leadership.
Other countries even have loonies for President (I'm not talking about the USA so calm down), so let's not have more pointless comparisons here.
I believe it is a genuinely good service to remove such a dictator,
Generally spoken, yes..
it should be done as often as possible.
Nice idea, but let me give you a better starting point, stop helping them to power to begin with.
Currently the USA has a long history of helping such people to power when it comes in handy, and disposing of those that become too much of a burden. Removing dictators to give democracy a chance is not entering the picture here at all.
Next, there is a very long string of historical events telling that if such a change doesn't come from within the country itself, it usually (but not always) fails.
If the people themselves under that dictator then continually everyday fuck each other over under a "damned if we'll let a western power come out of this looking good" mentality or useless religious differences then you still blame the person knocking the dictator out of power and trying to hold things to order as best as possible?
If you can predict with a very high level of certainty that you cannot stabilize the country after removing a dictator, and you still go ahead then you are indeed guilty of turning a bad situation into an even worse one.
This does in no way remove the responsibility of the people of Iraq and the insurgants there, but neither does their behavior remove the responsibility of those in charge of the invasion.
You invade, you occupy, you are responsible. Don't like it? how about not doing it then?
By letting someone speak an opposing view we hate you and want to see Israel wiped off the map? Just about any major meeting of national leaders includes a serial killer or two so why start with Arafat? War is horrible so you will get criticism of it - live with the fact or support those looking for a solution - Arafat despite his many faults did negotiate with others that were looking for solutions - including one Israeli leader that was assassinated by extremists for making deals.
At least Godwin's law hasn't come up - thankfully the discussion has been intelligent enough to keep that out.
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.
is good with one exception. When the bankers come to collect the US will need to call in some markers to pay of their debts. The nations that the US lends money to for the most part cannot possibly pay back the money. Mrs. Marcos cannot sell all her shoes which she bought with her embezzled money and Achmed certainly can't sell his tanks. So in short the US is screwed. The Chinese know this. There is reason why the US turns a blind eye to so many human rights violations.
If China decided to declare economic war on the US they would be buried.
Hee Hee The drinking bird does all the work!
The pentagon was talking about "operation Cut'n Run",
maybe only Rummy has figured out what that meant.
Robert
Frivolous , as in a sexual harassment case so lame, it was tossed summary judgement, since it was fatally flawed, as the plaintiff was unable to identify one instance of harassment? ?
Let's weigh instances of frivolity in the balance, ok?
On the left side of the scale, place a president's lies about acts of consensual sex given in sworn deposition in a civil case that had no merit. Onto that, place a stained blue dress.
On the right-side of the balance, place a president's lies and distortions about the causes for an immoral war. Onto that, place blood-stained Iraqi sands.
Which is more frivolous?
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Yes indeed
That's utter crap and you know it. Statistically, there are an order of magnitude more Western people killing Muslim people than the other way around. The West has certainly NOT transcended their era of military crusades, and the Muslim world's response to this is largely perfectly acceptable. Of course there are always extremists - in any group of people - but we can hardly point the finger at the Muslims when it is our extremism that is causing theirs.
That is also bullshit, unless when you say 'here', you actually mean 'in Palestine'. The Muslim world couldn't give two hoots about where the rest of the world 'is', as long as it's not in their own backyard, with weapons of mass destruction and a bag full of 'good intentions'.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Ha!
Ha!
Oh dear
Well, well, you just shot all the rest of your credibility to pieces. Israel is a gem of a racist, apartheid state
Oh, put a plug in it, you racist idiot. The same can and has been said about the Jews. I don't see any sizable numbers of Islamic fanatics on the verge of taking over the world, but if I did , then I would blame dickheads like you first.
We have now crossed into realm that ANY military action will no longer be tolerated by the American people. We have decided that ANY losses are too much.
Not at all. It's one thing to go defeat an aggressor like in the Gulf War. It is another thing entirely to occupy a foreign country as the aggressor. Do you think there are more, or less "terrorists" today than there was in 2001? There is no plan for Iraq - Saddam is out of power and soon out of life. The Iraqi have their chance at "democracy" with a new government and a new constitution, and seems that they don't want it. Is the US going to stay there until the last Sunni kills the last Shiite? Hello?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
We launched Desert Storm under dubious pretenses then as well. It started out as a border dispute, of which our regional ambassadors and CIA analysts were not concerned.
However Iraq was also looking for a way to get out of it's war debt to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait itself.
Saudi Arabia, and especially Kuwait wouldn't have that... so they encouraged the countries downstream from OPEC to make it right --
* Exaggerated reports of Iraqi troop buildup on Saudi border
* Kuwati $10M+ ad campaign to get public support with falsified reports of Iraqi attacks
So we go in, and the plan was to kick Saddam out and prop up a government that would help pay them back for the Iraq/Iran war (which we didn't handle so well).
It was too easy. So we didn't follow through because we thought we could control them economically. Instead they diverted funds to re-buffing the military and sponsoring ethnic warfare within the country. This drove the Kurds into Iran and Turkey, and provided the basis for growing militant Islam in the region.
I find it assisine that our leaders tried to go back in and finish what they started, thinking they could fix it. But they hadn't gotten the taste of urban warfare back in the early 90s (like I said, it was too easy), so it seemed simple enough to sell the idea of going back in and somehow undoing the damage. The theory being, by putting a democratic regime in charge, and re-uniting the ethnic groups, they could stifle militant fundamentalism that had culminated in 9/11.
So this time, they use "War on Terror" to sell the idea, rather than Madison Avenue.
None of the publically stated causes were ever just. There were other reasons (some of them with good intentions), but only to be revealed later. Many of them, however, were shortsighted and encumbered with hubris.
So yeah, I totally disagree that 7 years ago the world was telling us we should do this. The world was never telling us we should do this. We need to stop listening to the Saudis.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I think these are the words for which I have been searching quite some time. You just hit the nail on the head with that comment. US politics is only a small part of a complex means of existence that, believe it or not, some people don't subscribe to. Many would view this as a constant cultural invasion.
we succeeded in throwing the Iraqis out. But see, that's not what the Saudis and Kuwatis wanted out of us, they wanted repayment/resources from Iraq and a buffer against Iran.
We tried to do that as expediantly as possible (it would have cost us too much to topple and set up the government), but the plan backfired. We got them resources back in the form in payments for "services" (like using their airfields, transportation, food, etc.). But there was cultural/political instability, and we've been waiting for an excuse to try to fix that.
Only we waited until AFTER 9/11 to try to do it... big mistake. That was the tipping point where we should have realized that that idea was a forgone conclusion, and the "secular" Iraqi government would be better than anything else (which would be seen as overt western imperialism).
Forget about whether going into another country to change things is right or not on priniciple, it was just DUMB all around.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Bush is just trying to hold on for the rest of his Presidency so, when there isn't an Iraq on the map anymore, he can act as if he did his best and what came later wasn't his fault. This isn't a liberation, it's a dim little man who stumbled into the Presidency trying to protect his name in history. He's surrounded by a few incompetent but impervious-to-facts-and-reason would-be "visionaries" who have long histories of being wrong about just about everything and being completely insulated from any concept of responsibility or self-doubt. What would you really have us do here?
from wikipedia:
His first term of office was served from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford. His second term of office began January 20, 2001 under President George W. Bush.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Well, according to trickle-down theory, I should be getting my own loose-moral intern any day now!
Shoot!
I'll take that over tax breaks any day. Go Dems!
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
But if that's true, then how can 9/11 be Clinton's fault? It doesn't make sense.
i'm pretty sure the army times, navy times, air force times, and marine corps times saying he was an atrociously incompetent boob had something to do with it too.
My best guess is that George will be stepping down soon too.
The Demo's are going to take that new found power and start investigating the situation and thump Gee Dubya right in the head.
They (the demo's) will take any thing he has done wrong or out of sequence and rip him a new one.
The writing is on the wall.
I'm not saying President Bush is right or wrong.
I'm just saying that he has pushing his weight around since he has been in office and answering to no one.
Now we will see if he will have to pay the piper or his disregard for popular opinion.
I'd Tell you all my secrets but I lie about my past
Bush's untimely yanking of the US military from Afghanistan was wrong from at least two angles. First and foremost, it was wrong because our true enemy was there, and Saddam had nothing to do with 911. We should have taken al Qaeda to ground at Tora Bora then and there, withoput prejudice, for the dogs that they are, but instead, Bush decided to fix the data and evidence around his desire to assuage his oedipal urges in Iraq, the truth notwithstanding.
Secondly, Afghanistan's long descent into hell was in large measure caused by US reaction to the Soviet installation of a puppet regime in Kabul. Cater's NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski has in the past admitted that the arming of the Afghan Mujahadin occurred before the Soviet invasion, and was intended as a trap, and the Soviet's taking of the bait gave the U.S. an "opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war". Well over one million Afghanis died in that war, as well as 15,000 Soviet soldiers, mostly conscripts of poor peasants from USSR's outerlying regions. A fucking deadly pissing contest by two third parties.
This is the evil which began at the end of Carter's admin, but was taken up zealously by the ReaganCons. It was our responsibility to do what we can to bring Afghanistan back from their hell. Another miserable failure by the Son of Bush.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Why do you just copy and paste a small excerpt of what Kerry said during the comment and debate regarding the Authorisation of the Use of Force against Iraq. Tell me, Mr. A. Coward, are you just slothfully lazy or a GOP shill?
On October 9, 2002, Senator John Kerry spoke for 45 minutes on the Authorisation of Force, and yet little of it is actually cited. This is another of the many examples of distortions and outright dishonesty that the immoral GOP has shown itself capable of, yet still its Rank and Defiled refuse to look at the truth. Here are some excerpts from Senator Kerry's speech that day which GOP shills fail to cite:
That the GOP lies is well evidenced in the record. That GOP partisans refuse to see the truth is a grave danger to my country, and must be resisted.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
The New American Century was only half as long as the Thousand Year Reich.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Coming home in the car today, one of the radio news readers made a slip up and said that Bill Gates would be replacing Rumsfeld :)
--I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
Good riddance.
Y
The content is posted and selected by the members, and the membership will be driven by the content. That isn't really a recipe for automatic evenhandedness.
Based on your comments, may I take it that you never saw, or were completed disinterested in, any stories about Democrat aligned groups involved in vote fraud? It will be hard to have clean, fair elections if we don't clean up fraud and abuse everywhere it occurs. Yes, that includes when Democrats do it, or profit from it, as well and any connected to Republicans. (Don't kid yourself that the story I linked to was the only one involving Democratic affiliates.)
And don't forget the Democratic election day playbook that was found last election:
Democrat's lawsuit alleging election fraud dismissed
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
Well, then he's a perfect fit for this administration.
Cowards, traitors and murderers the lot of them.
Reasoned discussion is one of Slashdot's strengths..... when you can find it.
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
The current administration is not perceived as much more reasonable. Having people with less of a gung-ho attitude will not magically make everybody like you but it might stop your country giving them good reasons to hate you.
Perfection is impossible to attain, but there is a difference between being in a bad position and actively making it worse. In respect to the goodwill you had among the other nations of the world you've been doing the latter for the last couple years.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
"Good riddance. The world is better off without you, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld"
.... goes to my garden, eats all the flowers, and then claims I have WMDs under my geraniums, making a barbecue of the guilty beast is not scapegoating, if you ask me.
Scapegoating implies that someone is sacrified as a token gesture, shielding some other people.
In this case Rumsfeld, that once and again used the US army for politicial purposes (google for "American Century") was the leading strategist of the sorry mess Iraq has been.
His monumental incompetence and lack of judgment, heavily influenced by colonialist ambitions maskerading as the promotion of democracy, has been his downfall, not some sort of undeserved punishment.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Now, that is what I call progress.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... can't be brilliant by defintion.
And ill advice adventure rotten from the start could not be followed by anything brilliant.
At the end, the only thing we have is piles and piles of Iraqi corpses (US loses are minuscule in comparison, a side note really).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Google for it, Rumsfeld and many of the neocons base their policies on that rubish.
Iraq was in their sight before Bush became president. They were just looking for the lamest of excuses.
In the mean time the Taleban can't be defeated (the real sponsors of terrorism, which Hussein wasn't)
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The sanctions were in place in order to stop Hussein, amongst other things, to build WMDs.
Comes Bush, and after a decade of mostly effective sanctions, what does he say: they have WMDs.
You guys begin to sound quite desperate frankly...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Nothing else to say.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
No.
Who was the authority regarding WMDs in Iraq? UN teams, the last one headed by Hans Blix.
These teams consistently reported there were no WMDs, specially during the run to the invasion.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
US and UK forces were not invited and have no legal mandate to be there (i.e. scurity council resolution).
They are occupying forces, plain adn simple. That there are people trying to defend this mess wrestling with semantics in spite of the bleeding obvious, is a validation of how idiotic all this has been.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Is that you Mr Rumsfeld?
Turkey has clearly stated that if an independent Kurdish state arises, they will invade immediately. This in order to put to rest any false hope Kurds in Turkey may have.
Iran and Saudi Arabia would immediately try to influence and control the respective friendly states as buffer zones agains each other.
Then you have Syria's interests.
The current mess would be child's play compared to the consequences of your "solution".
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Your post broke slashdot. You are the last comment in the database that can be replied to. Go ahead, try replying to my post. You can't. It'll end up under the this article itself at the very bottom instead.
You should make t-shirts and sell them through Cafe Press to celebrate.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Of course we should not forget that Dr. Gates had a full chapter in the Walsh Iran/Contra report.
As for McCain's chances; if i was making the line, it would start at about 15:1, and i'd gladly take all of the sucker money coming down on him. His play for the right-side hasn't endeared him to the hard-right Republicans, and has alienated him from the independents. As for my take: He's no Bary Goldwater...
Your ex-mayor has even less chance than McCain. Did you see the NatRev cover of him about two months ago?
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Oh - it certainly will have SOME effect. The sooner we can clear the Bush administration out of the diver's seat of US policy the better. But this is no silver bullet.
The issue goes beyond our current political situation. Changing US political leadership is not going to stop Baywatch from being syndicated around the world. It's not going to stop Coke from peddling to every conceivable market. It's not going to stop various rights groups and interests from nagging about woman's rights. It's not going to stop Christian missionaries from spreading their particular religious meme. Our culture presses against others in the world despite US politics.
US culture enrages fundamentalist Muslims who see their cultures eroded. Osama bin Laden has written on the subject. If you can believe these writings as true reflectoins of his, and others of his ilk, feelings on the matter you will come to understand that politics are just one aspect of the current situation. I agree that we need political change. I'm not so sure we should be forcing such an overhall of our culture.
It should also be noted that we've had difficulties in the Middle East for decades now - under both Republican and Democrat leadership.
But then again, No Real libertarian is a Objectivist, they are instead Objectionists.
Aynnie used to be a darling of libertarian leaning conservatives, until the great bookburning of the reagancomdedy, when someone explained to the hammerheads that she was really a godless slut, and they burned her books along with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.
You may have noticed that i use a small l for libertarian. This is intentional, because what passes for the Libertarian Party has very little to do with true libertarianism. All those clowns seem to want to do is eliminate the minimum wage, and end eminent domain, they could care less about other things, like due process of law and habeas corpus, you know, REAL LIBERTY.
Your anti-global warming quip was off mark also. Most anti-global warming tripe is passed by the corporate funded faux libertarian tanks with Cato at its helm. Something closer to True libertarian thought can be found at Raimondo's antiwar dot com. Those faux-libertarian think tanks are doing a great disservice to libertarianism with their anti global warming garbage. They should instead be focusing upon effective market solutions to greenhouse emissions, instead of letting lame-brained leftyist anti-market solutions muck it up even worse. One quick and easy method would be to apply the accounting principle of future value for remediation of greenhouse gases done today, as well as factoring future valuations into present-day increased greenhouse gas emissions. That would greatly reduce the balance sheet liability for the cost of remediation, and place the burden where it belonged. See how easy that is?
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
How is it a lie? I myself have voted for third party candidates at times I would have still went out and voted even if they weren't running. I didn't say it was true for 100% of the people who voted for a third party candidate. Hopefully you're not claiming that it's NOT true in 100% of cases. Somewhere in the middle is the fact that in some close races, a vote for a third party candidate can and does end up in voting in someone who would have been the third choice by the majority of the people. That's why I strongly support instant runoff voting.