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.

Comments

Sore loser

[gorehog]

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.

Re:Sore loser

[GrayCalx]

Seems to me like he's just trying to hide. Cut and run.

Definitely could be... but since he's tried to resign twice now and been told by Bush he couldn't, it doesn't seem like a huge surprise that he finally did. Seems like a lot of people forget the times when he tried to leave.

Re:Sore loser

[erroneus]

Couldn't a presidential pardon clear that away?

This mid-term election sent a more-than-clear message about the occupation in Iraq (It's not a war you know) and the corruption in the republican side of the house.

I'm really rather shocked and awed that they didn't see this coming.

Furthermore, I'm looking forward to investigations of election fraud. I was gratified to have heard that there was a large band of people dispatched out to observe the implementation of elections. It probably went a long way to prevent fraud from occuring or being attempted. But where it may have managed to occur anyway, I'd love to see them exposed... I'm sure most of us would.

Still, I'm pleased to see Rumsfeld doing his own Cut'N Run. :)

Re:Sore loser

[Foamy]

Sore loser? Don't you mean "Cut N' Rummy"?

Sounds like a new cocktail will be making its appearance at DC bars soon.

Re:Sore loser

[DavidTC]

There are quite a few losing Senators and Congressentities that want to kick his ass right now, considering that if he'd resigned, say, the day before yesterday, he'd have taken the wind out of some of the Democrat's sails.

Re:Sore loser

[inKubus]

Regardless, I think I speak for (the majority of) America when I say, "Peace Out".

Re:Sore loser

[mi]

Actually, quite the opposite — Republicans' loss of Congress was reliably predicted for weeks. Rummsfeld's stepping down a month ago would've boosted Republicans (if only a little). That could've been called a "cowardly political move". The administration's waiting for after-Election Day is, actually, a remarkable show of integrity.

Re:Sore loser

[rainmayun]

Since when does Congress exercising its constitutionally mandated oversight duties constitute grandstanding?

Re:Sore loser

[illegalcortex]

I think it's understandable. You're talking about averages, but not every election is average. A year or two ago, this election had all the markers to indicate it would be below average or even an outlier. Speaking of statistics, another well known pattern is that a first term president's party loses seats in his first midterm election. Didn't happen with Bush. And even though it happened with Clinton, the Republicans had a right to grandstand due to the above-average size of their victory. Also, polls typically show voters in midterm election site local and state issues as being the drivers of their vote. In this election, it was national.

So I think the stage was set for this election to be below average and possibly even an outlier. Who knows what would have happen without the taint of Abramoff and with DeLay still in the driver's seat. The last-minute Foley scandal did't help, either. But just because it was the 6 year midterm doesn't mean it was inevitable that a not-widely-known-to-be-gay Republican would end up in a scandal for behavior bordering on pedophilia.

Even with all this, a lot of the races Democrats won were squeakers. In some, they were aided by a Libertarian third party that might have thrown the vote.

So I think it's quite remarkable.

As far as winning with dignity, I've never seen that happen on either side. Sure didn't happen in 2004 or 2002.

The funny thing about political statistics is that there are a near-infinite number to pick from. You chose "6th year midterm means ruling party loses seats in house and senate." But there are numerous variations on that. What is the statistic for "6th year midterm with president, house and senate controlled by the same party"? Or "6th year midterm during wartime"? Or how about both? Or other factors? And that's just the start conditions. There are plenty of variations for outcomes: a) presidents party loses seats in house OR senate, b) presidents party loses seats in house AND senate, c) presidents party loses CONTROL of house OR senate, d) presidents party loses CONTROL of house AND senate, e) presidents party loses a majority of the governorships, f) presidents party loses a majority of control in state legislatures, g) any combination of the above or a dozen other measures. It just goes on and on.

Without actually taking more into account than a very simple statistic, it's about as pertinent as using the winner of the Superbowl to guess the political outcome, or figuring out if a Star Trek movie will suck by which number it is. Human beings are programmed to search for patterns. It's too bad when those patterns make us stop paying attention to the actual details which make each situation unique.

Re:Sore loser

[Arwing]

From what I have heard from various sources (including NPR), the decision was made before the election during an infighting between the actual Republicans and NeoCons, since neocons basically lost this election, the actual Republicans demanded his replacement, Bush made a concession by agreeing to replace Donny but not before the election.

Re:Sore loser

[kendbluze]

Are we SURE he was sincerely trying to resign...or could he (and Bush?) have been manufacturing a public opportunity for Bush to re-state his support for Rummy? I'm inclined to think it's posturing.

Re:Sore loser

[MECC]

Actually, I said this in another thread, but its worth saying again:

Heckuva Job, Rummy.

Re:Sore loser

[spun]

As the administration has no integrity, they must have had other, more pragmatic reasons for waiting. Perhaps their assessment of the situation differed from yours.

Re:Sore loser

[WATYF]

hrmm... I dunno.... that's not likely the reason he left. Like you said, he could just be subpoenaed.

It's more likely that he left because Bush recognized that the way the Iraq war was going was the major reason that his party lost the House (and possibly the Senate) and finally decided that he couldn't just stick with the same guys who'd been doing a crappy job this whole time. Like someone else said, Rummy tried to leave a couple of times before... it's just that now, Bush finally had the motivation to let the guy fall on his sword.


WATYF

Re:Sore loser

[flyingsquid]

It's political theater. I'm sure the administration could be very persuasive, but if Rumsfeld truly wanted to resign, he could. Offering his resignation the first time around was a way of accepting responsibility for the Abu Ghraib scandal, not necessarily an indication that he truly wanted to resign. I don't know about the second time, but I think it's traditional for all of the President's secretaries to hand in their resignations at the beginning of the second term, which he then will/will not accept. This is the president's way of asserting that they are his bitches. Finally, in politics, "resigning" is frequently a polite word for "got your ass fired". It's a way of giving the person a graceful exit and saving face. That isn't done out of charity or anything; it's just that people with nothing left in terms of their reputation have nothing left to lose, and that makes them dangerous. If Bush publicly fired Rumsfeld and humiliated him in doing so, Rumsfeld might try to redeem his reputation a bit by bringing Bush down a notch or two.

Re:Sore loser

[Moofie]

"a remarkable show of integrity."

You're joking, right? This is cut and run. Rumsfeld is not resigning. He's being scapegoated. You watch: Everybody in the administration is going to be saying "Well, we wanted to do this better, but Rumsfeld talked us into doing it his way..."

Re:Sore loser

[jkauzlar]

This is completely true, but as I understand it's customary for people at that level to offer their resignation when things aren't going well, even (especially) if they don't expect to be taken up on it. This was in, among other things, Bob Woodward's latest book, in which he investigated Rumsfeld's persona indepth. The book was well worth the read and I actually have more respect for Rumsfeld after reading it-- at least in the sense that I realize he acts according to some plan, and not just out of pure evil.

Re:Sore loser

[SydShamino]

Not at all. Having Rumsfeld step down weeks ago would have validated Democrat claims that "this administration has it all wrong" and "Rumsfeld needs to go", while invalidating Republican claims that the country should "stay the course" and that Rumsfeld "has the confidence" of the President.

In other words, it would have given backing the to Democrat campaign platform from the White House. That just couldn't be done.

Re:Sore loser

[dankrabach]

Maybe Rummy on Iraqs.

Re:Sore loser

[superpulpsicle]

You know there is something very wrong with the administration when I misread "six stormy years" as "six horny years", and didn't even blink.

Re:Sore loser

[jafac]

There is no illegal immigration problem.

We have an illegal employment problem.

Go after the employers, and they'll stop coming to this country for illegal jobs.

It's easier to go after hundreds of illegal employers than it is to go after MILLIONS of illegal immigrants.

Enforcement of employment regulations dropped 95% under Bush. There HAS to be a better answer than Cheap-Labor Conservativism.

Re:Sore loser

[SillyNickName4me]

He's being scapegoated.

That is indeed quite likely. It is also likely to be a quick move to undermine initiatives from a democrat ruled congress. You are going to say you want a change of policy? well, we already have the person in charge replaced, so just wait and see the new policy..

I find it kind of sad. I have no personal liking for Rumsfeld, and I do believe he is in part responsible for the current situation for the US army in Iraq, but he is far from alone in that, and I'm not so sure that his (forced?) resignation is going to serve anything.

Re:Sore loser

[Princeofcups]

> It's more likely that he left because Bush recognized that the way the Iraq war was going was the major reason that his party lost the House...

Do you actually think that GW makes ANY decisions on his own? I assume by "Bush" that you mean the big business controlled Republican machine.

jfs

Re:Sore loser

[Skidge]

six horny years

No, that would have been the last administration. :)

Re:Sore loser

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Are you sure about that? I think it might have deflated the R's more than the D's - and given real credence to the "time for a change" meme.

Of course, I believe this mainly because the R's didn't set the resignation on Monday - if they had thought it would benefit them, be sure that Rumsfeld would have been gone at least two days ago.

Re:Sore loser

[demachina]

"Having Rumsfeld step down weeks ago would have validated Democrat "

Probably true if it had happened out of the blue. If all the Republican Congressional candidates had gotten together en masse and demanded Rumsfeld's resignation a couple months ago, Bush had actually done it, and they'd gotten someone like McCain in there it could have probably been a huge net plus for the Republicans and could have turned the election. It would have shown the President as breaking out of his bubble and listening to the people's representatives in his party, and taking a new tack on Iraq instead of just staying the course and slowing throwing American soldiers and dollars in to a never ending meat grinder. Of course McCain is likely to increase the troop strength in Iraq not decrease it and no telling how that would play with Americans especially if you had to start a draft to get the cannon fodder.

A few congressional candidates did demand Rummy's resignation at the last minute when they realized they were in serious trouble over Iraq but it was to little to late and just looked like a cheap political tactic to save their skins.

It was just beyond bizarre for Bush to pat Dick and Don on the back right before the election and say they were going to be there for the duration of his second term. I can't seriously believe he had really decided to get rid of him at that point. It makes him look either deceitful, foolish or both.

For people who used to be pretty politically astute they seemed to have developed a real tin political ear. Maybe they never really had a good ear, they just noticed the Democrats suched and they could ride 9/11 and and gay bashing to victory for a while. Rumsfeld and Cheney are popular with almost no one at this point, Democrats or Republicans. The only people still in their court are the rabid pro Israeli lobby, like Lieberman, who got us in to this mess in the first place. At this point Israel and Iran are about the only two places where there are still people who still like the war in Iraq, Israel because it got rid of one of the two biggest threats on their borders, one who shot missiles at them, and Iran because it appears they will be the big winner of this foolish war in the end. I wager even Israel will regret the whole thing when an Iranian friendly Shia theocracy is in full bloom in Iraq. Turkey will also be royally pissed when Northern Iraq turns in to an independent Kurdistan and tries to seize the Kurdish regions of Turkey.

Re:Sore loser

[LurkerXXX]

Maybe if we're really lucky, we'll throw him under the bus for war crimes and somehow find a way to totally undermine the whole US military (yeah, you're going to sign up and do our war fighting when we won't protect you from the UN.

Wow is that way out there Republican propaganda. People have signed up for military duty for many decades knowing that the US signed the Geneva Convention and that they were to uphold those standards during their military duty. They also knew there could be consequences from them if they broke them. Holding folks accountable who followed clearly illegal orders isn't going to scare away people with real senses of duty and morality from going into the military. The ones without senses of morality we can do without. Things like what happened at Abu Grab certainly hurt the war effort, and our country, far more than it helped.

Re:Sore loser

[Shadow-isoHunt]

Congratulations on making the post that broke slashdot.

Re:Sore loser

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Well, it was either this, or win the lottery. I stand by my decision.

Good news, bad news

[Anonymous Coward]

Good news: Rummy steps down.
Bad news: Replaced by former head of CIA Gates

captcha: eighth

Re:Good news, bad news

[Nyeerrmm]

I'm a student at Texas A&M (where Dr. Gates is currently university president,) and I'd have to say I disagree with this assesment of the man. He has done a great job here of seeing problems, finding a solution, and forcing it through even with strong opposition on some things. He has improved our faculty, decreased class sizes, and worked to change our image, all without ruining what many of us like about the university.

Yes, the CIA has gotten a bad rep of late, however, judge the man for himself, not for what you think of an agency that by its nature doesnt really defend itself from a bad reputation. (Note, I'm a republican, but not a Bush supporter, and am very glad to see Rumsfield gone.)

Good at war, bad at peace

[Com2Kid]

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....

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[Anonymous Coward]

That strategy being bomb key locations (and some not-so-key ones just to be safe), then declare victory? I've seen Risk games with more strategy than that. WWII had strategy, this was barely practice for a real war.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[hsmith]

Militaries aren't designed for nation building.

they are designed to kill

thus the crux of the entire problem.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[antv]

To be honest, his strategy for initially winning the war was really damn good. He is honestly a man I would want leading out troops in a traditional war. (minus the body armor stupidity...)

His strategy for war was mediocre at best. Rumsfeld was lucky enough to fight a war against a country 10 times smallert than USA (25 mil vs 300 mil population), with 20 times less money, 50 smaller army and weapons from 1980. In a traditional war you want competent people like Gen. Zinni and Gen. Shinseki, who were fired by Rumsfeld for, well, accurately predicting current disaster in Iraq.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[Mushdot]

Unfortunately this wasn't a 'traditional' war, in fact it wasn't really a war in my opinion.

I can't comment on Rumsfelds battlefield acumen in other conflicts, but it saddens me to think that this man will step down and probably get another high profile job, write his memoirs etc while leaving the whole Iraq mess behind for someone else to clear up.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[StupidHelpDeskGuy]

You can not initially win a war. You either win or you lose. He and his cronies started a war that can not be won. What is worse, is that he's been planning this since the 80's.

Mr. Rumsfield and Mr. Bush started a war in Iraq for the wrong reason. What is worse is that in doing so, Rumsfield sought evidence to make his case, as oppossed to making his case around the evidence. Mr. Rumsfields was is, was, and will continue to be a disaster. For you to claim otherwise is absurd.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[JavaLord]

Militaries aren't designed for nation building. they are designed to kill thus the crux of the entire problem.

Which is what nobody seems to get nowadays. Does anyone think that had someone else been in charge they would have brought western style democracy to Iraq? Or has anyone woke up to the reality that you can't shove democracy down the throat of people who want Sharia?

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[xENoLocO]

What war?

I don't recall any declarations of war...

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[Keebler71]

His strategy for war was mediocre at best. Rumsfeld was lucky enough to fight a war against a country 10 times smallert than USA (25 mil vs 300 mil population), with 20 times less money, 50 smaller army and weapons from 1980.

The second statement doesn't support the first. You may be right that there was a disparity in the composition of forces, but what about the conduct of the "hot war" made it "mediocre?"

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[GigsVT]

The only reason it wasn't obvious is because of the lies we were being fed.

I remember thinking "Why the fuck would we attack Iraq all of a sudden?". I still don't understand what made that moment in history the "right one" for invading a soverign nation.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[Doc Ruby]

Somebody else in charge would not have invaded Iraq when we needed to win the war in Afghanistan.

"Bringing western style democracy to Iraq" has never been more than a slogan to win elections. It worked like a charm for 2 in the US, including one presidential.

If Rumsfeld were a competent Defense Secretary, he would have protected the US by winning in Afghanistan and pursuing a counterintel global pursuit of our terrorist enemies. Not created a catastrophic distraction that alienated our allies and our own citizens from each other.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[EmperorKagato]

That's just like taking out key pieces of your opponents chess pieces in a chess game(Queen and Rooks) and not worry about the insurgents(Knights) that can really do some damage.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[MouseR]

6.5 years ago, the entire world was telling the US there was no cause of warring on Iraq. There was no plausible link w/ 9/11, no WMDs to be found, no threat whatsoever.

When US did invade and then finally conceded there were no WMDs, the entire world went "told you so" while the US poked their ear drums going "Lalalalalala".

The obvious answer today was as obvious for the rest of the world back then.

But every time an outsider brings it up, it's "you're not with us you're against us" kinda crap. The US citizens were BS-ed out of reason into accepting this early on and now comes the time for the Bush family and their friends to account for what they did.

It's going to be a tough time for Gates to fix the situation. Let's hope his Iran/Contra dealings gave him enough experience...

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[Hijacked Public]

Depending on what you consider right, it was right.

It was right because the climate in the US still allowed the Executive branch to do pretty much whatever it wanted under the guise of protecting us from terrorists. Right because the press, caught up in the wave of patriotism, was happy to copy and paste anything served up to them by the feds right on to their front pages, retractions and apologies about shoddy fact checking and shirking journalistic duty to be printed a couple years down the road on the back page. Most of the US and quite a few abroad were united by an honest and worthwhile desire to combat terrorism and the time was right to exploit that. I'd say that, considering the amount of money made off the whole thing, that is an excellent return on investment.

So in the sense that it could be done while everyone not on the receiving end of the bombs was still smiling it was a resounding success. Even with the benefit of hindsight and full knowledge that we were hoodwinked into supporting the invasion the best punishment we appear to be able to mete out is to hand control of congress to a political party that was just slightly less culpable in fabricating the entire deception.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[pnewhook]

That's a loaded question though, because the 'obvious' answer is different now than it was 6.5 years ago.

Only for Americans that were fed lies through their media. For nearly every other country on the planet the war was an unjustified fabrication - no one believed there were any WMDs in Iraq.

And for protesting the American government pushing through the war, other countries were villified. Next time when the entire world tells you that you are wrong, it might be a good idea to listen.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[necro81]

Not to seem like I would defend Rumsfeld, but question 1 was not his place to answer.

I disagree. The Secretary of Defense isn't the one with final say, but he is a member of a small group that advises the President on making the decision. Qutie simply, if the President asks the Secretary of Defense "should we go to war?" it is the SecDef's primary and explicit job to answer - to advise the President. If a Secretary of Defense were to say to his President that the U.S. should or should not go to war, that weighs heavily in the final decision.

In the particular case of Rumsfeld and the Iraq war, he was a primary architect of that war - not just the fighting of it, but of the push to have a war in the first place. Considering how hard he pushed for it, to say that "question 1 was not his place to answer" is, frankly, bullshit. Rumsfeld had an answer to that particular question, and made sure the whole world knew about it, and advocated it to the President.

Now, asking rhetorically: If Rumsfeld had not pushed for going to war, would it have happened anyway?

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[Just Some Guy]

Maybe we need to start training our boys as diplomats instead of as just gun wielding meat heads.

On behalf of soldiers, sailors, and veterans everywhere: go fuck yourself. I did a much more technical job with cooler toys and better results than anything you've probably seen in your cushy civilian job, then came out and breezed through college. For every 1 stereotypical jackass I knew in the military, there were at least 5 experts in difficult tech fields.

Screw you and your misperceptions. The military hasn't been the way you described it in decades.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[bitslinger_42]

From a semantics point of view, you are correct. The problem is that Bush uses "war" both in the semantics context (i.e. we are shooting them, they are shooting us) and in the legal context (i.e. Commander in Chief, broad war powers, etc.) Without that formal declaration, the legal context doesn't exist, and therefore the derivative powers don't exist.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[7Prime]

Your aggressive attitude just goes to prove my point.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[Darby]

That's a loaded question though, because the 'obvious' answer is different now than it was 6.5 years ago.


No it isn't.
The obvious answer hasn't changed since none of the facts have changed.

If you were stupid enough to have believed Bush's lies in the first place, then having seen them proven to be just lies would make you think that.
Nobody with any sense believed a word of his nonsense from the beginning.

So to anybody who gave enough of a shit to put any actual thought into the matter, nothing has changed and the obvious answer is exactly the same now as it was then.

Rumsfeld always got stuck in a position where he had to present a nuanced situation, and his decision based on that situation, without being able to give people all of the (classified) facts that led him to a decision that may be the best decision at the time, but isn't necessarily a popular one.

Hardly.

He sold his own lie through spouting insane and ridiculous nonsense. There was no nuance since he already planned to attack Iraq prior to the 2000 elections and he further planned to use *any* attack on the US as an excuse to do so knowing full well that he would be unable to convince the American people to back that play through any honest methods.

Seriously, dude, they published a position paper stating *exactly* that.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[Chris Burke]

The second statement doesn't support the first. You may be right that there was a disparity in the composition of forces, but what about the conduct of the "hot war" made it "mediocre?"

The initial invasion was Rumsfeld's attempt to start a new war doctrine for U.S. forces, and thus leave his stamp on the military. He envisioned a lighter, faster U.S. force that could be deployed cheaper, a modern equivalent of Blitzkrieg. Apparently he forgot that much of the strength of the U.S. military came from logistics and having solid supply lines. As our forces raced up the highway towards Baghdad, they became too stretched out, our supply lines weakened, and the flanks started to come under attack by Iraqi forces. This forced us to stop and regroup and replace the strategy with a more conventional buildup and advance. Basically, the doctrine failed.

The disparity in forces was such that the victory in the conventional war was a guarantee, even with a foolhardy start to things we were easily able to pull it together. Of course, the fact that Rumsfeld was unable to see the flaw in his brilliant new doctrine and the fact that he was unable to see that the end of the "hot" war would only be the beginning are related. The man is incompetent at his job. Always had been, always will be. I would be a better defense secretary. A terrible secretary to be sure, but I'd at least be able to accept the advice of those better versed in war than myself. Rumsfeld thought ideology would trump reality, and he was wrong.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[quantaman]

Maybe we need to start training our boys as diplomats instead of as just gun wielding meat heads.

On behalf of soldiers, sailors, and veterans everywhere: go fuck yourself. I did a much more technical job with cooler toys and better results than anything you've probably seen in your cushy civilian job, then came out and breezed through college. For every 1 stereotypical jackass I knew in the military, there were at least 5 experts in difficult tech fields.

Screw you and your misperceptions. The military hasn't been the way you described it in decades.

He stated it poorly but I don't believe he was talking about intellect or technical ability but rather interactions with civilians.

One interesting thing I heard in the early goings of the war was that British troop found that they were more likely to be shot at if an American patrol had been through the area perviously (as opposed to British). Now some of this could just be anti-american sentiment but I also believe the US army at the end of the day is a machine designed to kill enemy soldiers, when you try to use that machine to create peace in an unstable country than it's not going to work nearly as well as a machine that was designed with peace in mind.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[Princeofcups]

> On behalf of soldiers, sailors, and veterans everywhere: go fuck yourself. I did a much more
> technical job with cooler toys and better results than anything you've probably seen in your
> cushy civilian job...

Yeah, I'd hire you for a tech job. Sure, that's just the attitude that we like.

Instead of intelligent argument, just lash out, yell and scream, tear off some heads. You sure are a good representative of the military mindset. I think you prove the previous poster's point.

jfs

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[cold fjord]

What war?

I don't recall any declarations of war...

Maybe this will help:

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.

--- Rebert F. Turner, co-founder, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia School of Law
FISA vs. the Constitution

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[SillyNickName4me]

Depending on what you consider right, it was right.

Lets put the question a bit differently, were there independently verifiable and legally sound reasons to invade Iraq at that specific moment?

It was right because the climate in the US still allowed the Executive branch to do pretty much whatever it wanted under the guise of protecting us from terrorists. Right because the press, caught up in the wave of patriotism, was happy to copy and paste anything served up to them by the feds right on to their front pages, retractions and apologies about shoddy fact checking and shirking journalistic duty to be printed a couple years down the road on the back page. Most of the US and quite a few abroad were united by an honest and worthwhile desire to combat terrorism and the time was right to exploit that. I'd say that, considering the amount of money made off the whole thing, that is an excellent return on investment.

That all has nothing to do with 'right' and everything with convenient.
With regards to 'quite a few abroad' being united by an honest and worthwhile desire to combat terrorism, that might be true, but has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, virtually noone outside the USA believes this invasion had anything to do with fighting terrorism, and if anything, the invasion resulted in fracturing that union. For some specific people this invasion brought in a lot of money maybe, I seriously hope they get caught and their money is given back to whom it really belongs. Maybe it is 'smart' from a certain point of view, but making an argument that it is somehow 'right' is ridiculous.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace

[Sassinak]

The reason I ask the question is that what you say is quite true for specific branches of the military.

Having worked for all the branches at various times (both during peaceful times and "escalations") I can certainly attest that what has been said by others ("meat heads") is true to a limited extent.

The Airforce has always been a specialist branch. (A 9-5 job. Wake up, have your coffee, go bomb a few people, come home for lunch, bomb a few more, have dinner then enjoy the entertainment of your choice).

The same is true for the Marines (which historially has been a elite and small outfit). Except no 9-5, and less perks.

The Army and Navy have at times recruted on the basis of being able to listen and shoot (and not always both of them, depending on the need for bodies).

The army you have...

[Tackhead]

"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

Wow, talk about bad timing

[Salvance]

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.

Sure, he may not have specifically offered until today, but he has offered his resignation at least twice in the past ... 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.

Re:Wow, talk about bad timing

[Raul654]

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.

Re:Wow, talk about bad timing

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

He actually said that he would not ask Rumsfeld to step down and that Rumsfeld would have the job as long as he wanted it, but nice try though.

Bill Gates?! Defense Secretary?

[mekkab]

Bringing new meaning to the (Red White and) Blue Screen of Death!

Oh wait, what? Bob Gates?

/Nevermind, then.

Wow, what a day!

[BandwidthHog]

I, for one, welcome anyone else that might replace him.

Fuck, at this point, I could just about support Kissinger!

Re:Wow, what a day!

[g00z]

That is the nerdiest thing I've ever read. And this is slashdot.

Bravo sir, bravo.

House of Duras.. Jesus.

Fox news coverage was great

[Raul654]

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"

Re:Fox news coverage was great

[IANAAC]

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"

That ws just Kelly Ripa getting rid of a stain with her Tide stick.

Re:Fox news coverage was great

[myth24601]

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"

Those were the other White House corespondants.

Good timing

[adam613]

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.

Re:Good timing

[Kevin DeGraaf]

First, Montana has already been decided in favor of the Democrat.

Second, he was talking about confirming the new nominee (Bob Gates) during the lame-duck period of the existing 55-44-1 Senate.

Re:Good timing

[Kevin DeGraaf]

Who the hell modded this insightful? Did you do any fact-checking whatsoever?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet

"Cabinet officers are nominated by the President and then presented to the United States Senate for confirmation or rejection. If approved, they are sworn in, receive the title 'Secretary', and begin their duties."

Re:Good timing

[StupidHelpDeskGuy]

The election is over. I wonder if Allen will have the guts to forgo a recount, and live up to the statements he made in 2000. Keep in mind the gap refered to in this quote was 500 votes. Allen is behind by several thousand.

And Allen on the Today show 11/8/2000:

The morning after Election Day 2000, when Florida was counting absentee ballots, George Allen said, "we'll need to move America forward as soon as those votes are cast."

Re:Good timing

[truedfx]

Did you do any fact-checking whatsoever?

Followed by a link to wikipedia...

Smart move

[RichPowers]

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.

We Have No Memories

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Take about getting what you want

[Doctor Memory]

Well, according to trickle-down theory, I should be getting my own loose-moral intern any day now!

Which war are you talking about?

[Alphager]

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" ?

Re:Which war are you talking about?

[paanta]

No, the current type of War in Iraq is a war that almost no army has ever _won_. Plenty of countries have _fought_ wars like this. Sure, IEDs are new(ish), but most of the rest of it is entirely familiar. It's not so different from the Russians in Afghanistan, or the French in Algeria, or even the US in Vietnam.

Re:Which war are you talking about?

[twifosp]

Which begs the question why can't they just split the countries up? I never even hear this an option. Iraq is divided. Ok so who cares? Take all the like minded people in region A and call them Assholia. Take all the like minded people in region B and call them Fucktardistan. Why do people try so hard to make it work. Split the factions up, divide the land up, and let them be angry neighbors, not angry countrymen.

Re:Which war are you talking about?

[freeweed]

Because the world doesn't want another Israel.

Or Vietnam.

Or Korea.

The sad thing is...

[__aaclcg7560]

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.

Re:The sad thing is...

[venicebeach]

This happens only after Republican blood was spilled in the election. The blood of thousands of soldiers spilled on the battlefield didn't count for squat.

The happy side of it is, we apparently can make a difference with our voting.

Re:The sad thing is...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>The military wanted this fight just as badly as the Bush administration did.

The Army War College warned against it, General Newbold opposed it, General Shinseki didn't want to do it with that few troops, General Cordingley opposed it in public, and General Zinni of Central COmmand said it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time before the invasion.

Re:The sad thing is...

[deepestblue]

OK, this fucking pisses me off.

What about the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

Re:The sad thing is...

[__aaclcg7560]

As I pointed out on a similar Slashdot article, America does not care about the Iraqi people. When you have a war that calls for no sacrifices from the American public, it's just a video game of something happening over there that doesn't effect anything here. Had the president slapped down an oil tax to finance the war, Americans would most certainly give a damn and applied the brakes a lot sooner.

Re:The sad thing is...

[Hektor_Troy]

They don't live next door, you don't work with any of their relatives and they don't get to vote in your elections.

In other words: Noone cares about them.

Re:Speedy Press

[truthsearch]

This only happend because the Democrats won the house. Rumsfeld offered his resignation to the President at least 2 times in the past, and was rejected.

This is just playing politics. It's just like Pelosi stating she won't start any impeachment. Each party must concede something to get any support from the opposite party. Dems say they won't impeach and Bush gives up Rumsfeld. These people care more about their political games than actually taking a stand on something.

Suggested Department Name Change

[mirio]

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?

Re:Suggested Department Name Change

[b0s0z0ku]

Dept. of Defense be called the Dept. of Offense

I preferred the pre-1950-or-so names. DoD was the War Department. Short, honest, and to the point. Homeland Security was Civil Defense. That name was better, too, because it implied that civilians had a part in defending their country against the enemy. "Security" sounds like we're to rely on some sort of external force like the police or Guard to keep us "secure."

-b.

Rumsfeld is a stooge just like Bush

[Dracos]

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.

Re:Rumsfeld is a stooge just like Bush

[metlin]

That man has made more contributions to the world economy and the US than most, and needs to be respected for that.

Then again, trust a Slashdotter to portray one of the most influential men today in neoconservatism as an evil man.

Funny, really. The world and the US needs more people like him.

He should never have been SoD

[caseih]

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).

Re:He should never have been SoD

[houghi]

Information
  here

Quote:
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:

# "A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."

# "Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic -- especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."

# "Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."

# "The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."

# "Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."

# "A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."

Re:Well, that didn't take long

[Moofie]

That was my first thought. He was demoted from SecDef to scapegoat.

Now somebody go do the same thing with Gonzalez.

Saddam

[Threni]

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..."

Re:Saddam

[Threni]

> That handshake was after Hussein had gassed the kurds with US supplied chemicals.

No, it was five years earlier.

1983
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

1988
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_at tack

Re:PNAC

[antv]

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 ?

Smile for the camera

[shrubya]

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.

Why Flamebait?

[ackthpt]

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.

Senate, not House

[peacefinder]

"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.)

Good at war? WTF?

[Colin Smith]

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.

Fault?

[Hap76]

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.

Sacrificial lamb?

[pointbeing]

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.

Re:Sacrificial lamb?

[BOI-Galveston]

From the recent CNN profile of rummy, he was trying to do to the military what he and others have been doing in the corporate world, use just barely enough resources to get the job done and use up your people. That just doesn't work in war. You have to occupy territory to win. There is no way around that. You can't do that with an American corporate mentality. I had a teacher in high school who was a Vietnam vet and he said they would be told to take a hill, then leave it. Then the enemy would reoccupy it and they would have to fight their way up it again - over and over. Sound familiar? This is what the lack of troops is doing in Iraq. Either flood the country with U.S. troops, be prepared to occupy it for several years until things calm down, or start to withdraw the troops.

Re:Sacrificial lamb?

[Citizen of Earth]

Either flood the country with U.S. troops, be prepared to occupy it for several years until things calm down, or start to withdraw the troops.

A cheap alternative that they should have pursued from the start would be to flood the country with Iraqi troops & cops. Being a cop or soldier should be the best-paying job that an unskilled young man should be able to get; instead, the pay sucks and the Jihadists even pay more. Spending these millions would save billions. Iraqi security forces should physically occupy every square inch of the country. Even if 20% of them turn out to be infiltrating Jihadists, there's still 80% to gun them down. Penny pinching on security-forces pay is just bonkers.

Gates and Iran/Contra

[truthsearch]

Robert M. Gates was the Central Intelligence Agency's deputy director for intelligence (DDI) from 1982 to 1986. He was confirmed as the CIA's deputy director of central intelligence (DDCI) in April of 1986 and became acting director of central intelligence in December of that same year. Owing to his senior status in the CIA, Gates was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities.

- Walsh Iran / Contra Report

Re:Gates and Iran/Contra

[DavidTC]

Oh, good. It always annoyed me that Watergate was overrepresented in the White House. Maybe now the Iran/Contra guys can field a softball team too.

Condescension

[Rasputin]

"...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.

Re:Condescension

[deuterium]

Sure, but when "House" does it, everyone thinks it's cool.

Re:Condescension

[HTH NE1]

Sure, but when "House" does it, everyone thinks it's cool.

Are you saying Rumsfeld should get an Emmy or Golden Globe?

Re:Condescension

[wavedeform]

Yeah, but House always gets good results.

Participating in what?

[fantomas]

"I think Rummy hoped the Iraq people would have stood up and participated sooner than they have."

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 can't let you get away with that!

[CyberLord Seven]

First:

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.

Re:I can't let you get away with that!

[TonyGreene]

I remember a lot of arguments about why the US should or shouldn't invade Iraq. I don't recall a lot of people arguing that they didn't have WMD. There were arguments about whether an invasion was the "best" way to deal with the threat. There were arguments about the cost (blood, money, stability, prestige). There were arguments about just how much threat Iraqi WMDs actually posed to the US. But the idea that there weren't any WMDs was nowhere near the top of the list of arguments.

UN inspectors left Iraq just before Clinont had the place bombed in 1998. He did that because Saddam wasn't letting the inspectors do their work. Saddam didn't let those inspectors back in unti Bush threatened to invade the place and actually started building up forces in Kuwait. Even then, there were still indications that Saddam was playing shell games. He'd been uncooperative with the UN inspectors for years. In South Africa, when they chose to give up nuclear ambitions, the UN inspectors had no problems verifying that they'd done so. That's because South Africa was not trying to maintain a nuke program and wanted everyone to know that. Iraq under Saddam was a completely different story. He resisted the inspections the whole time. Unlike South Africa, there was no evidence that Saddam had made a good faith effort to get rid of his nuke program. Basically, even though the inspectors could not prove it, it looked like he was lying.

Even so, there were still good arguments against invading. I made some of them myself in arguing with friends at the time. But the assertion that the Bush administration knew there were no WMDs just isn't supported by the available evidence.

People who are angry at how this has turned out have lots of good arguments to choose from. The "WMD was a lie" argument just ain't one of those.

Re:I can't let you get away with that!

[JhohannaVH]

Considering those are direct translations of the captured Iraqi Documents... I don't see it, but ok. :) Can you at least identify the straws? Maybe the VX recipe? Maybe the Nuclear Instructions that were so rapidly taken down off the web earlier this week? Um, I dunno... but I know the guy doing the translations, and they are balls on, according to my husband who speaks and reads Arabic and Farsi. You admit you aren't an expert, so why do you think he's grabbing at straws?

Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war

[Phoenix666]

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.)

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/r wp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf>

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.

Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit.

First you seem to link "pro-Israel hawks" (whatever that is) with the push for the invasion.
From wikipedia's account of the lead up to war (which corresponds with what I heard from the various news outlets prior to the war):

Several prominent evangelical leaders of the Christian right send an open letter to President Bush outlining a "just war" rationale for an invasion, citing Saddam Hussein's possession of nuclear and biochemical weapons, and advocating immediate military action.

Unfortunately there's no source, so I'll call it a draw (your word against Wikipedia's). And please don't try and use that it was from the Christian right as support for your "Zionist Christians" are in on it too - you don't know who sent the letter (unless you're willing to clearly state that you're off your rocker and label the whole evangelical Christian right as Zionist Christians).

And what AIPAC wants from Washington, it gets. This despite a huge portion of the American public who opposed the invasion

Now this is easiest to disprove. Look at January 2003 from the wikipedia link or the direct reference which has the hard numbers. A February 9 2003, (just around the time the invasion occured, support for the war was generally around 66%. If the United Nations opposed it then the support dropped to 50% but rose to 57% if allies such as Great Britain and Italy joined. After the invasion, support was at 62%. In April, support was at 72% believing the war was justified, even without any proof of biological or chemical weapons.

An interesting factoid is that 63% of people believed Bush had supplied enough evidence for invasion and 55% believed Bush had demonstrated sufficiently that Iraq directly supported Al Qaeda.

Anyways, the rest of the Wikipedia article clearly shows that public support for the war was quite high before & after invasion.

So I clearly see your point of how it was the Jews (or some other pro-Israel lobby group) and not what the American public support at all.

Essentially what we've been doing in Iraq is fighting a proxy war on Israel's behalf

Essentially what you've been doing in Iraq is fighting a proxy war for Bush Sr/Haliburton/defense contractors etc...

Overall, you just come off as a rambling conspiracy nut who blames Jews for Iraq.

On a personal note regarding

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

Palestinians are people too, and they do deserve to live in peace - but so are and so do the people in Israel. However, I'm sure that you're skewing reality - it is the people who justify Palestinian suicide bombers, taking Israelis hostage, and calling for the destruction of the state of Israel are the ones who are labeled Anti-Semites.

Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war

[sfeinstein]

First, let me say that your entitled to your opinion and I do not want to engage in a flamewar. I'm an American Jew that supports Israel and the attitudes expressed in your post are just baffling to me. So, let me throw my two cents in:

I consider myself a pretty fair guy that understands that for the most part, people want to support their families, feel secure and live decent lives. No sane citizen would want ongoing, pointless, bloody violence. That's the same whether you are a palestinian, Israeli, American or whatever.

So consider Israel's situation. They are as legitimate a nation as any other. There're tons of border and land disputes in the world and Israel is obviously not an exception. But they exist, they have sovereignty and are a democratic, legitimate state.

It is also worth noting: Israel does *not* try to invade and expand into is neighbors for the purpose of getting more land. In fact, since its establishment in 1948, Israel has only responded to its neighbors declaring war on it (sometimes with extreme responses, it is true) but hasn't declared war first itself. Granted, one of those cases was a neighbor closing Israel's access to sea ports, which internationally is recognized as an act of war.

My point is: Israel is fighting for recognition and survival. All of its neighbors that attack it are fighting to kill every israeli man, woman and child. They want its land. They want its people dead. Furthermore, a lot of the violence is carried out by terrorist groups that have no accountability internationally. Israel on the other hand has to answer to the world (or at least, they are a government that makes decisions and the world can hold Israel accountable for them...there is nobody to even negotiate with or hold responsible on the Palestinian side because nobody has any leadership or control over the military apparatus...it is all different factions).

Now, to address the point about U.S. media. Israel is critized ALL THE TIME. In fact, my big complain with NPR is that they always run Palestinian human-interest stories and report on facts as "palestinian sources say" without giving any of the Israelie perspective! CNN is the same way.

The international community certainly (or U.N.0 doesn't seem to be stepping up to say "Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state; we will defend this right". I mean, you can hate the jews or not but your hatred shouldn't give you the right to kill them and take away their land does it?

Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war

[dantheman82]

Perhaps it would be helpful to include an answer to the paper by Mearsheimer and Walt to provide some balance. They take a very strong (and rather conspiratorial approach) and thus perhaps those who read it should see a published response also posted on Harvard's site: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers /dershowitzreply.pdf

Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war

[Phoenix666]

This is not my thesis, it is Mearsheimer's and Walt's: ahref=http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper .nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdfrel=ur l2html-13241http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/ wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf >

It is impeccably researched and supported. Many of their sources are from Israeli researchers.

AIPAC is not just Jews. It also includes evangelical Christians who support Israel for eschatological reasons. That is, they believe that it will hasten Armageddon and the Rapture. AIPAC also does not comprise all Jews and does not represent their opinions in toto. Many Jews both here in America and in Israel oppose the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Therefore it is not an accurate statement to say that Jews are to blame for Iraq, and at no time did I say that. Given the weight of evidence, it does appear to be an accurate statement that pro-Israel hawks, both Jews and Christians, are to blame for Iraq. And that's the statement I made.

You may call me a conspiracy nut. That is your right. It is a counter-productive and incorrect thing to call me, but you can. Walt and Mearsheimer, however, are about as unimpeachable in their credentials, work, and reputation as anyone can be, and you cannot call them conspiracy nuts. Though you apparently did not read their paper that I linked to before, I do recommend it to you.

Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war

[Phoenix666]

The evidence weighs pretty heavily against claims of moral superiority. Even the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon disproves the assertion that "Israel has only responded to its neighbors declaring war on it." Lebanon did not declare war on Israel. And as awful as it is, the two soldiers taken by Hezbollah is not an unusual occurrence nor something that is only practiced upon Israel by its enemies; For example, in the 80's Mossad commandos assassinated top members of the PLO in Tunis. Incidentally, we might note that Tunisia did not respond by declaring war on Israel.

Lastly on the score of moral superiority, the demonization of Palestinians as being terrorists is rather ironic, given that Hagannah and other zionists used terrorism to convince the British to leave Palestine. There is a lot of evidence to support the statement that Israel itself was founded through terrorism.

Israel's tactics and behavior are as bloody and brutal as its opponents'. Neither are they supported by a great many Israelis. Recently a number of Israeli officers refused deployment to the occupied territories, and they were dubbed 'refuseniks.' There are many American Jews who also oppose the occupation. So there is no monolithic Israeli or Jewish opinion on the matter; it is a lot more nuanced and complex than Americans are led to believe. And Americans are not aware of that fact because intelligent discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actively suppressed and spun by AIPAC and a score of other allied organizations.

Finally, you sound like a reasonable person, so I ask you to take a look at this map of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and reconsider your assertion that Israel does not try to take its neighbors land: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement. I would further add a quote from David BenGurion, one of the fathers of Israel, "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."
So, it has been an express policy from the outset for zionists to take their neighbors land.

I would note that when Serbs expelled Bosnian muslims from their land in Yugoslavia, it was called "ethnic cleansing." When the Turks expelled Armenians from their land, it was called a "genocide." So Israel's expelling 700,000 Palestinians from their land and colonizing the occupied territories looks quite similar.

Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war

[dlapine]

Wow. I just swapped the world 'Israel' in the above with 'Palestine' in the comment above. Scary how well it reads. I'll bold any other changes for readability.

Just to be sure, I'm not an Israeli or Palestinian. I'm not a Jew, a Christian, or Muslim. I'm an American, and it's always amazing to me to see how much American effort goes into protecting the interests of the Israeli state. (and the Big Oil companies, can't forget them.) What's also interesting is how much misunderstanding goes into any conversation along these lines.

So consider Palestine's situation. They are as legitimate a nation as any other. There are tons of border and land disputes in the world and Palestine is obviously not an exception. But they exist, they have sovereignty and are a democratic, legitimate state.

It is also worth noting: Palestine does *not* try to invade and expand into is neighbors for the purpose of getting more land. In fact, since its occupation in 1948, Palenstine has only responded to its neighbors declaring war on it (sometimes with extreme responses, it is true) but hasn't declared war first itself. Granted, one of those cases was a neighbor closing Palestine's access anywhere, which internationally is recognized as an act of war.

My point is: Palestine is fighting for recognition and survival. Its neighbor which attacks it is fighting to kill every Palestinian man, woman and child. They want its land. They want its people dead. Furthermore, a lot of the violence is carried out by military groups that have no accountability internationally. Palestine on the other hand has to answer to the world (or at least, they are a government that makes decisions and the world can hold Palestine accountable for them...there is nobody to even negotiate with or hold responsible on the Israeli side because nobody has any leadership or control over the military apparatus...it is all different factions).

Now, to address the point about U.S. media. Palestine is critized ALL THE TIME. In fact, my big complain with Fox News is that they always run Israeli human-interest stories and report on facts as "Israeli sources say" without giving any of the Palestinian perspective! CNN is the same way.

The international community certainly (or U.N.0 doesn't seem to be stepping up to say "Palestine has the right to exist as a Muslim state; we will defend this right". I mean, you can hate the muslims or not but your hatred shouldn't give you the right to kill them and take away their land does it?

As I said, it's scary how the same statements work for either side.

Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war

[Phoenix666]

That's great, but Dershowitz is a member of AIPAC and begins his reply by tarring Walt and Mearsheimer with the anti-Semite brush by comparing them to David Duke. It is a petty and simplistic, even histrionic response to a measured and thoughtful piece. It does rather prove Walt's and Mearsheimer's point, though, that AIPAC does not discuss. It slanders, libels, defames, intimidates, and silences anyone who dares try to have an intelligent, reasonable, and respectful discussion that differs with AIPAC's world view.

Frankly, as it is written Dershowitz's piece does not rate equal footing with Walt and Mearsheimer's. Nor do I deem it my duty to present AIPAC's case, since theirs is the only case that ever gets heard in this country.

However, it was kind of you to put the link up for those who are interested.

Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war

[sgt_doom]

Actually (all us college types say "Actually"), you be wrong on all three counts, dudey.

AARP ain't the strongest lobby in Washington (and neither is AIPAC) and the majority of faculty at Harvard are clueless pimps! That said, the oil lobby is probably one of - if not the - most powerful. The primary reason Iraq was invaded was Saddam pledged plubicly he was going to switch to the Euro to sell his oil and he was going to double oil production. The secondary reason was the Busheviks considered this to be a good move to build up "political capital." (Go figure?!) And who the f**k bothers with Freud or Jung anymore.....

So Bush lied (again)?

[smooth wombat]

Maybe my memory is failing, but I seem to recall just last week Bush was saying that Rumsfeld was doing a great job and has his full support. Oh yeah, here it is. Yet amazingly a replacement for Rumsfeld was found in a few hours.

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

Re:So Bush lied (again)?

[GSwarthout]

So Bush lied (again)?

What lie?

So let's see, first we lie about the invasion of Iraq being tied to the September 11th attacks.

Source?

Then we lie that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

Actually, we didn't lie. Believing something to be true that later turns out to be false is not lying.

Then we lied that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda.

Source? You can start here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

Re:Probably not the only one. Bolton?

[Phoenix666]

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.

Mod parent up!

[khasim]

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.

one down

[Anonymous Coward]

One horseman down, three to go.

That's illegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

If only Bush had chosen Borat...

[Lensar]

...to replace Rumsfeld. That would have sent a strong message that the administration believes it's time to push AIPAC down a well.

Not getting over it

[Rob the Bold]

No piece of paper, silly declaration from congress, stamp, official gold star thingy, or anything is going to change that.

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 . . .

Re:Not getting over it

[twifosp]

I don't think I was being clear enough and you've misunderstood my post. When I say silly piece of paper, I mean a bill passing a resolution for war. Not the consitution. When I say "get over it", I do not mean the war. I've never been a supporter of this debacle. What I meant is that people need to stop arguing over wether or not we've declared war. It doesn't matter if we declared "Cheese". We're still in the middle of a god damn war.

Grunts Killed by People in Authority

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of us are familiar with the notion of losing your job due to the actions of your manager or those who are higher in the chain of command. For example, if the CEO (like the idiot at Ford) makes a poor decision to invest the entire company's fortunes in a failed product line (e.g., sport-utility vehicles at Ford), then the grunt at the bottom will be the first person to pay the price of the poor decision. He will lose his job in a layoff.

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?

Re:Grunts Killed by People in Authority

[jafac]

Who pays the price? Nearly 3000 American soldiers died, and 50,000 soldiers are wounded.

. . . not to mention 650,000 Iraqi civilians.

. . . not to mention nearly half a trillion US dollars from the treasury - er, I mean, from Chinese bankers.

Re:Grunts Killed by People in Authority

[SillyNickName4me]

not to mention nearly half a trillion US dollars from the treasury - er, I mean, from Chinese bankers.

Yep, thats a seldom talked about and rather thought provoking detail.

Pardons in Advance

[DragonWriter]

Yes, you can pardon someone before they are charged as, notably, Ford did for Nixon.

resignation attempts

[j1m 5n0w]

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.

Re:resignation attempts

[2short]

Of course it was an act. He doesn't have to "offer" anything; the president can fire him any time he pleases, and of course if he really wants to resign, no one can really make him stay on the job. An offered, but refused, resignation that is made public can only be politcal theater. There's no reason to tell anyone about it otherwise.
    In the wake of a scandal, Rumsfeld in efect said "Don't blame the Prez, I take responsibility." to which Bush responded "No, no, we're in this together." Both get to act all big about accepting responsibility while implying it's not really their fault and not really having any consequences.
    Now he resigns, and it is accepted, in response to what? The fact he'll soon be answering prickly questions in front of a House oversight committee, and it will be easier for the administration if he's not a current member.

Re:resignation attempts

[TXG1112]

Here's one: During the invasion, why did you elect to guard the Iraqi Oil Ministry rather than the Weapons facility at Al Qaqaa?

Something I wonder if I will ever understand...

[cr0sh]

So, Rumsfeld was the "architect" of this, and now he is stepping down. Good. Glad to see him go. However, will the guy taking his place be any better?

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

Re:Gates and kennedy

[Darby]

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.

Sore Winner

[Shadowlore]

Group A; "We want him out! Now!"

Group B: Fine, he's gone.
Group A: "NoooO! Not yet!!"

Welcome to US Government Politics 101.

Based on the information WHO provided?

[Burz]

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.

Everyone please read NSArchive article

[Chris Burke]

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'.

Re:The more sad thing is...

[Darby]

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.

Re:I just wish Diebold hadn't stole the election

[Stanistani]

It's not like they didn't try, we just kept our hand on our wallet this time.

I'm just glad Slashdot raised the flag on Diebold

[GreenSwirl]

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

Re:waiting for the islaminazis

[inKubus]

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.

The boss is still there

[microbee]

Title says all

The new boss is same as the old boss

[wealthychef]

People, don't get excited. From TFA:

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.

Re:Unpopular War?

[ej0c]

No person could ever have thought that Iraq would have a permanent democracy in six months.

My own feeling was that if we were lucky, we'd be able to secure Baghdad from Saddam's forces in 6 weeks to six months; by which time we could rightfully say that the "war" was over in the same sense Desert Storm was "over".

Now, to be honest, my feeling was that a weak government would take over, that we would not stay put, and that within 2-5 years, by democratic election or by coup, Iraq would slink back into 1)radical theocracy, 2) totalitarian dictatorship, or 3) some semi-functional central government which gradually becomes irrelevant.

Instead, we achieved a real democratic election, with a real constitution hard-won by the people, and a government that genuinely was the best that could be worked out by and for Iraqis. In short, they have self-determination, and they are learning how to keep it.

Even better, their neighbors in Iran, Syria, etc. are seeing this and envying them.

--
Now, to see a way forward, one has to actually look forward. One has to look at the 1200 year repression of the Shia, at the relative peacefulness of their theology, at the power-centered structure of the Sunni theology, at the positive experience the Kurds had governing themselves under the watchful eyes of the USAF for a decade. One has to be dissatisfied with the status quo of people dying by brutality or by starvation across the middle east forever now. And one has to look for possible solutions.

Or, one can take the intellectually vapid approach of saying, "George Bush doesn't speak fast enough, so he is dumb, so the war is wrong."

Back in the 90's certain Republicans complained the Bill Clinton only used military force to cover other problems. They could have thought about the fate and chances of the people of Bosnia, Iraq, wherever, but that takes work and compassion and study, and after all, who can be bothered with learning a 2500 or 4000 year old art.

Good job, Fiddlah.

[Ayanami Rei]

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.