bozothedeathmachine
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Messages
- 649
Is Rummy going to blame starting the war on his alcoholism now?
Edit: Spelling
Edit: Spelling
Breaking News: Rumsfeld Stepping Down
- Thread starter Katana
- Start date
-
- Tags
- donald rumsfeld
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
I was trying to be funny (lumping him in with Brownie...), yes Rummy was qualified (if, IMO, a huge failure. Cohen was qualified too...long years in the Senate qualify many for these kinds of jobs...think Laird...hell, even Tower was quaified (though "borkable").
Walk The Line
We ARE Virginia Tech
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 936
That's great! Your S.O. is obviously someone with impressive intelligence and excellent taste.
Of course. I would expect nothing less from a W&M alum
I was responding to the statement that Rumsfeld resigned to avoid being a target. By the fact that resigning does not exempt him, I was making the point that was not why he resigned.
I doubt it. Do you really think that during the confirmation hearings that "Bushco is cleaning up its act" is going to be the sheet music? Watch and see. It's going to be, "What are you going to do to get us out of this mess?" and "How did we get in this mess?" and "Follow the money", and spinoff investigations ad nauseum.
What issues did the Republicans focus on this year? Iraq, terrorism, gay marriage and flag burning. Gee, no wonder they got their asses kicked. Gay marriage and flag burning are infinitely small in importance in the public consciousness. That leaves Iraq and terrorism. And it's a mess.
Instead of flag burning, they should have focused on prescription meds, social security, and other things that really freaking matter.
So it is all about Iraq this election.
Seeing Rumsfeld's demise was a no-brainer for me because of that. His demise was predestined months ago.
It might have been a standing offer from Rumsfeld that Bush finally accepted:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/rumsfeld.resign/
Tricky
Briefly immortal
...and is he going to write a "tell-all" book?
You should probably worry more about your grasp of the Constitution. The SECDEF does not start wars - Congress does. The GOP-controlled house and a Senate controlled by the Democrats started this war.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
I am sorry, but having been in the DoD while Cohen was Sec Def, he was pretty much useless.
William Perry? There was a solid Sec Def.
DR
I'm no Rumsfeld fan, but replacing him with an ex-CIA guy, esp after their "WMDs in Iraq are a slam-dunk" SNAFU? Yeah I know he wasn't CIA then, but I'm talking the perception....
This opinion brought to you by The I-hate-both-parties-independent-thinkers Association. US reg pat off.
This opinion brought to you by The I-hate-both-parties-independent-thinkers Association. US reg pat off.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
It's more than that... Gates is/was up to his Rumsfeld in Iran/Contra.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
Unfortunate double post...
Don't mean to sidetrack (in fact feel free to PM me so as not to do so) but curious to your reasons, as I've been "under" DoD for quite some time myself. Perry annoyed the flip out of me with his "C3 Architecture" stuff.
PS anyone know of a link showing who was DoD going back X years? Searching google and DefenseLink and the like hasn't turned up anything for me. Thx
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Ah. I didn't get that. Sorry then.
Nevertheless, it would have made Bushco look like they were at least trying to do something better than what was going on. Ideally (for the Republicans), Rumsfeld should have announced this on Monday. Frankly, I think Bushco was still in denial about the direction the election was headed. Then again, this may be why "stay the course" left the lexicon recently.
I really didn't hear much about gay marriage and flag-burning in the last run-up to the election. Mostly it was just the usual character assassination. Plus Iraq.
I'm surprised the GOPs didn't tout the (reasonably) good economy more than they did. Maybe because so many people aren't really feeling that much better about the economy. I think they would have been burned by health care too. That "solution" hasn't really been much of of a crowd-pleaser either.
Still makes no sense to me. But then, little that this administration has done makes sense, so maybe this is just another verse in the whole cluster-**** sheet music.
Last edited:
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
Perry succeeded Les Aspin, who got fired for listening to the Joint Chiefs on the base force, after he directed a rational review to assess requirements. So, what did Dr Perry do?
He took a losing hand (note, he resigned after three years) and successfully presided over a contentious relationship established between the Pentagon and the White House the day of innauguration. He kept the split over budget, force structure, and the clumsily lost homosexual initiative from deepening the rift begun by Panetta, Clinton, and a whole host of amateurs who showed up in the Executive Branch. Cohen, on the other hand, completed the sell out of the Military Health Care system, and as for acquisition reform . . . don't get me started.
I was generally impressed with Perry's rational approach, his intelligence, and his ability to articulate policy and direction when no one had any funds to do much of anything. My biggest disappointment from him was his inability to keep the raids on OPTAR/OM&N accounts, during Clinton's continued nickel and dime deployments, from doing the damage they did to logistic sustainability of the force. He tried, but he also knew what happened to Aspin when he pointed out "you can't get a free lunch."
He made the best out of a very bad situation, and did it with class.
DR
Last edited:
Combining your two statements together.
I think the Administration believed that they had the public behind them all the way in Iraq. Even with Bush's approval rating in the gutter. Some sort of weird delusion going on there.
I think the Administration got so used to associating Iraq with the War on Terror, that they began to believe their own crap. They were told the American people believe the Republicans can do a better job of protecting them from terrorists, and so in their minds, it meant Americans were behind them on the war in Iraq. They couldn't get it through their minds that the war in Iraq is no longer closely associated with the War on Terror in the public mind any more. If anything, the war in Iraq is breeding terrorists in the American mind.
So under this Iraq/War on Terror connection delusion still in full swing in the White House, they felt that having everyone focused on Iraq was not a bad thing for them.
By the time they realized their error, the election was looming large and it was too late to boot Rumsfeld because the confirmation hearings for his replacement would become a platform to bash Bush and, by extension, the Republican Party.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Anyone else remember how just last week Bush said something like "Rumsfeld is going to stay on as SECDEF until the end of my term"?
Otherwise, Bush has finally made a personnel decision that I can agree with.
Otherwise, Bush has finally made a personnel decision that I can agree with.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
Another analysis that I found useful was the analysis that said that the election was nationalized. But, interestingly enough, it was Bush as much as the Dems. that Nationalized the election. Had they kept it local...had Bush not focused himself on Iraq, there might have been a window through which voters may have seen the economy in a better light. But both Bush and the D's kept bringining it back to Iraq...and Iraq just isn't working for Bush.
