The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Bush nominates former CIA chief Robert Gates as defense secretary to replace Donald Rumsfeld

If he was going to quit, shouldn't he have done it before the election?

JansenFan wrote::hmm: If he was going to quit, shouldn't he have done it before the election?

I think he didn't see the writing on the wall until after.

Not going to be negative. At least he is gone. Now we can move on. The question is will it be for the better or worse?

JansenFan wrote::hmm: If he was going to quit, shouldn't he have done it before the election?

Honestly I think until last night a solid number of people in the White House saw Rummy's continued presence as a strength for them ... Rove's "genius" has always been somewhat oversold, the fact that this resignation comes too late to aid any GOP candidates is further proof of that ... in an election season when so many Democratic candidates attempted to (and, it would appear, succeeded) nationalize their campaigns, a Rumsfeld step-down could have been a huge boon

JSPB22 wrote:

JansenFan wrote::hmm: If he was going to quit, shouldn't he have done it before the election?

I think he didn't see the writing on the wall until after.

I would have to believe that Bush gave him the option of quitting and "saving face," or else he was going to get fired. From what I understand about him, Rumsfeld is NOT a man who would quit this position.

Remember, this is the man whom Nixon referred to as a "ruthless little bastard."

in an election season when so many Democratic candidates attempted to (and, it would appear, succeeded) nationalize their campaigns, a Rumsfeld step-down could have been a huge boon

Agreed... it was a serious tactical error politics-wise.

But doing so the day after the election is now a good thing for Bush and the GOP rather than drawing it out for months before he finally "resigns".

thaiphoon wrote:

in an election season when so many Democratic candidates attempted to (and, it would appear, succeeded) nationalize their campaigns, a Rumsfeld step-down could have been a huge boon

Agreed... it was a serious tactical error politics-wise.

But doing so the day after the election is now a good thing for Bush and the GOP rather than drawing it out for months before he finally "resigns".

It also preempts any investigations the Dems might have thought about.

It also preempts any investigations the Dems might have thought about.

yes... and no.

Rumsfeld can still be called to testify.

Which I hope he will.

I seriously cannot wait for all of the investigations that the Dems have planned

thaiphoon wrote:

It also preempts any investigations the Dems might have thought about.

yes... and no.

Rumsfeld can still be called to testify.

Which I hope he will.

I seriously cannot wait for all of the investigations that the Dems have planned

I don't think they are strong enough to do any serious investigating. They'd be pretty stupid to reach for that brass ring too early. No, I don't think they will walk into that trap.

I don't think they are strong enough to do any serious investigating. They'd be pretty stupid to reach for that brass ring too early. No, I don't think they will walk into that trap.

hehe - one can only hope can't they ??

Remember the extreme left is going to want some scalps and Rummy's won't cut it. They want Cheney and the rest of the "planners".

Iraqis on Thursday cheered the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, blaming him for policy failures and scandals they say helped spawn the daily sectarian carnage wracking their nation.

"Rumsfeld's resignation is a good step because he failed to keep security in Iraq," said Saad Jawad, 45, a former army officer who also works at the Oil Ministry.

Many Iraqis blamed Rumsfeld for spurring the emergence of Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias by disbanding the former Iraqi army following the April 2003 toppling of the former government of Saddam Hussein.

"I am happy with Rumsfeld's resignation because he played a major role in disbanding the former Iraqi army. He participated in building the new army on a sectarian basis,"

"Rumsfeld's resignation is not enough," Ahmed said. "He should be put under investigation for his responsibility in the crimes committed in Abu Ghraib and the killings and rapes carried out by U.S. soldiers against Iraqi citizens, he said.


LINK HERE

Now the question is will this happen? Will America be able to see past the flag that is the U.S. and see a crime as a crime. Or does political crime only exist beyond the American boundaries?

Now the question is will this happen? Will America be able to see past the flag that is the U.S. and see a crime as a crime. Or does political crime only exist beyond the American boundaries?

huh ?? Please elaborate ...

thaiphoon wrote:huh ?? Please elaborate ...

Well it's elementary my dear Watson. Iraq has plunged into hell over the last 4 years. Yes the cats out the bag. The worse place to live in right now is Iraq. As I have stated numerous times it is getting worse not better.

WMD's = lie
Al Qeada link = lie
Saddam captured = insurgency continues and got stronger
Al Zarqawi killed = insurgency continues and got stronger
October 2006 = deadlest month ever
Future outlook = neverending

So as you see my boy the U.S has tried to justify this war with lies but those were proven false. They then said the Iraqi people wanted Saddam gone and if done so it will end the insurgency. That didn't work. Then they said well if Al Zarqawi is killed it will end the insurgency since 'it's on it's last leg'. Well it has been months since that *terrorist* has been killed and we saw the worst month ever in Iraq.

This was was originally a PRE-EMPTIVE strike remember? Pre-emptive against what? So it all turned out to be a LIE. Which means the whole thing is ILLEGAL. If something is ILLEGAL than someone has to be to blame right. Should we blamet he Iraqis for this? Or should we blame the criminals who instigated it? I prefer the latter. Thats where Rumi comes in.

Trust me...give this a shot. I tried it in one of my other threads.

Rumsfield lied about a false war. Then Rumsefiled invaded an innocent nation. During the process thousands upon thousands of innocent people died under the control of Rumfields military. The invasion has been seen as illegal by the entire world and he deserves punishment.

Now substitute all the 'Rumsfields' and in its place put Saddam.

Saddam lied about a false war. Then Saddam invaded an innocent nation. During the process thousands upon thousands of innocent people died under the control of Saddams military. The invasion has been seen as illegal by the entire world and he deserves punishment.

Much easier now right? You see Saddam in that paragraph and you start to understand the crime a bit more.

Just a clarification. There's a world of difference between a "mistake" and "illegal".

DESkins wrote:Just a clarification. There's a world of difference between a "mistake" and "illegal".

As well as between "mistake" and "lie."

Now that the Dems are in charge will someone please start looking at their voting records regarding this "illegal" war that was pushed upon the world through the use of "lies."

Does anyone not remember civics class? The president can't go to war without the permission of the Legislature.

chaddukes wrote:Does anyone not remember civics class? The president can't go to war without the permission of the Legislature.

He can't? Are you sure about that?

Yes. The President can order strikes, but only the Legislature can approve any action lasting more than 60 days.

In this case they voted for the action.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml