Bush Says Rumsfeld Resigning, Gates to Replace Him
 

The fallout from the election begins

The whole story

One down.... How many more will go???

Huzzah!

well well-

I think the next couple of years is going to be really interesting.

Bottom line the GOP will fail if they can not make changes that make people want them in office- I think we are going to see alot of interesting moves and changes before '08.

It's like chess.....

Here is my expectation for the next two years:

Democrats: Investigate a myriad of financial scandals from Iraq to Texas. Try and drag the administration through the mud.

Republicans: Block everything the Dems try to do and then run on the "Democrats can't get things done" platform.

Gridlock. It's what's for dinner.

Or Cheese

Fillibuster.

Great word, nasty place to be in.

Well, the Democrats' first request (in letter form from Pelosi and..shoot, who's gonna be the new Senate leader?) involved 3 things.

1) An emphasis on disarmament of the Iraqi militia, rather then letting Malaki get away with being beholden to the criminals that are running the country and driving it towards civil war.

2) Rewriting the Iraqi Constitution to be more equitable to Sunnis rather than the Shiite-friendly version that threats to drive the country to civil war.

3) Redeployment of troops.

OMG, she's a lunatic!

I'll bet George is having a cow. Cheney is probably standing there ready to shoot it.:D

Rummy's out.
Good.

I am most interested to see:

*what happens with immigration reform- I oppose amnesty for illegals. "Hey- break the law, we'll still let you stay!"

*what happens with spending - will the new congress shrink gov't and spending?

Has any congress? Ever?

Well, since the Republicans lost this election based on the war, I think it's appropriate that that is the place Bushe seeks to make the first changes. However, don't try to full us in saying that his resignation had nothing to do with the election. How stupid do you think we are? Why doesn't Bush take credit for making a good decision and firing the guy?

I kind of feel sorry for ol' Rummy. Seems to me like GW kept him around to be the whipping boy, and once the election proved that tactic wasn't working GW cut Rummy loose.

The musical? :D

Because it is not something he can take credit for. Rumsfeld has tried to resign more than once and Bush made him stay.

:D

A cow with a head that sorta looks like a chimp... maybe Dick is right to shoot it.
:D

Now I'll be humming "One Night In Bangkok" for the next week.

TACO!

Could this thread hold any more innuendo?

I read that as menudo.:D

Yup it's like a big burrito full of it.

un burrito mas grande es en mi pantalones...

mi pantalones son de queso!!!!!!!!

::wipes water off of monitor after reading CM's post while drinking:: :)

I don't think he kept him around to be the whipping boy. It is obvious this was in the works well before the election because he already had a successor to be named that had agreed to take the position. Bush is loyal to those that are loyal to him. I think Bush didn't want to use him as an excuse prior to the election, as in "see, I fired the guy who is responsible for the stuff not going well in Iraq". Might have been better politically to do so.

I disagree.

3 out of 5 Republican Senators who voted AGAINST the war were voted OUT.
Lieberman TROUNCED an anti-war democrat.

It it not a black and white issue, and I feel it is incorrect to say they lost based on the war.

It's likely a mistake to simply guess why people voted the way they voted. While polling is an inexact science, exit polling is the only way to even get the remotest of ideas as to the issues people voted upon.

So, if anyone can link to some exit poll results, that might be helpful to the discussion.


But, ya know, pure speculation is cool, too.

However exit polls are skewed as well.

There is no doubt that the war played a part- but I don't think it is correct to say the GOP lost because of it.

However I do think that Rumsfeld leaving is a direct result of the election.

Once the Democratic congress gets fired up with their investigations of the Iraq war (and you know they will) It will be Gates answering questions like:

Congress: "Why did you disband Iraq's military and put thousands of trained military out of work and into the hands of the insurgency?".

Gates: "I was not present when that decision was made"

And so it goes....

I don't believe that- I think it was in process before hand.

Things are moving into place for 2008-

Eh, I will believe NPR's interviews with people across the board over what Nephy's believes.

Whatever

..and another

No link- the person who reference it said he got an email.

here is the link

Yeah, I suppose you are probably right. Rumsfeld was asked to step-down for the sake of the 2008 election. I wonder how many US service men and women would be alive today if he had been asked to step down when it became obvious he was a terrible manager.

Still like you say. All that really matters is that he stepped down in time to make the '08 elections smoother for his party. A real hero to be sure.

That is not what I said Moonliner- and you damn well know it.

Frankly I have not been watching Rumsfeld enough to lay all blame on him like some want to do-

But to think they are not making moves in order to set things in motion for '08 is naive.

link

An article about who else may be stepping down.

Damn Nephy! You are two for two today. I could not agree with you more. Laying all the blame on Rumsfeld would be wrong. His boss deserves most of the blame.

as if:p

That is an interesting link. Thanks.

Can you say stubborn?

If you expect him to roll over and simply give up doing anything- you are SO wrong.

LOL- it's laughable to think he is simply going to simper to the Dems and only do what they prefer.

Is it laughable to hope that he just does what is best for the country?

Which is NOT having 1,000s of our troops being killed?

Three for three...... I agree with Nephythys.

What I expect (as opposed to what I would like to see) is that Mr. Bush will play the game. For example, Bush has long been in favor of immigration reforms that his own party blocked. If the democrats want to send up that issue then I expect it will be all smiles and nonpartisanship but the tune will change when a stem cell issue hits his desk.... and that's all just politics. It's what any lame duck would do.

*growl* don't get me started there. I am SO not on board his plan for illegals.

Stem cells-interesting topic. As loathe as I am to dredge him up- Clinton refused to give federal funds to stem cell research. Bush does- but only on existing lines- and people scream and freak out.

It's hysterical. Sometimes people just want something to complain about.

OK, just for the record, Much of what Clinton did was crap and I'm talking policy here not Monica's. He was not a good president. He sold nuclear technology to North Korea, he did not deal with Bin Laden, etc. etc......

However using Clinton's failings to excuse the actions of George Bush is just juvenile. It's like a school bully saying, yeah I kicked bobby in the head, but Billy put his mouth on the water fountain. It's just lame.

That is not what I did.

I am not saying "but Clinton did this...."

So stop twisting it and listen again-

Why is Bush bashed for stem cell research when he is the only POTUS to give federal funds to it? There is nothing to excuse- he GAVE fed funding to the research- Clinton did not. WHY are people angry when he did what Clinton would not? That is the curiousity.

First, let's start with the full story.

source

So his initial act was to allow certain stem cell research. The Dickey Amendment was (and continues to be) attached to a larger appropriations bill, passed by congress, whose main focus was dealing with balancing the budget. The bill did too much good to veto over one tacked-on ammendment.

And on top of all that, tell me this. In 1995, if someone had asked you what you thought of stem cell research, would you have been able to give an answer. I certainly wouldn't have known wtf it was. So no, there was no public outrage because it wasn't in the public eye yet.

Far better answer than others I have seen. Thank you.

Not true:

Link

He did not deal with him in the sense that he was still around.

But he did try. I'm tired of right-wingers claiming he ignored Bin Laden, which is absolutely untrue. The truth of the matter is that the Bush administration ignored him – even after being warned by the outgoing Clinton administration – until 9/11.

:rolleyes:

That's rich.

Clinton had years to get rid of Bin Laden and did NOT- Bush was in office for less than a year and you expect he was just supposed to get it done huh?

Like the Clinton administration left a freaking note "here- deal with this, we did not get it done". Then when we don't go out and "get him" right away that means they ignored it.

And this.

Personally I don't blame Bush for 9/11. As you say he was relatively new to the office and there were a lot of issues to deal with that I'm sure at the time seemed more pressing. What I do blame Bush for was the response.

Directly after 9/11 the United States had the support of pretty much the entire globe. The RUSSIANS let us stage troops in their territory. China turned a blind eye as we attack afghanistan. We had international NATO forces volunteering in droves for patrols over US territory. Bush took all that good will / international support and pissed it away to pursue a personal vendetta against Saddam. With the botched job he and his administration made of Iraq we now have a larger and more organized terrorist organization than we have ever faced and I'm not just talking Iraq. He's sullied the name of the United States the world over and won droves of converts to the radical Islam cause.

Get a room ;)

No, I don't expect him to rollover and yes, I expect him to play the game BUT he couldn't get this guy through his own congress. He's got a better chance now? ... with the election going the way it did?

True.

But if he puts in someone who even he knows they won't accept- then he can put through someone else he wants who he already has in mind. The way I figure it if he chooses wisely those who oppose Bolton will be more likely to accept the next nominee.

But bottom line he will still put up the people he wants-

True that. Looks like we'll be wasting some more time and generating more division. It's sad.

Humm ya think?

Looks like the Bolton nomination is dead anyway. Lincoln Chafee is killing it.

Heehee- a RINO's revenge?

So your version of bi-partisan is Bush keeling over and only putting up people the Dems want?

I refuse to even get into this anymore with people who have not (obviously) read the 9/11 Commission Report. If you tell me you have, then I really have to question your motives in posting this. The Report was critical of the Congress that was so obsessed with Clinton's sex life that they refused to take seriously anything he had to say about bin Ladin or anything else.

Bush has had every opportunity to get him and he hasn't. Crap, we're on the ground all over the place and can't seem to find the asshole, and you fault Clinton? I seriously doubt Congress would have rubber stamped any efforts he made. :rolleyes:

Did Mr. Rumsfeld really quote Churchill during his resignation speech? Ugh.
:rolleyes:

While talking about him on the Daliy Show, there was a picture of him with the word "Pentagoner" under him. That's comedy.
:D

WB, we've talked about the 9/11 report and even you have expressed that yes, rather than a complete truth telling, this was also about a CYA for EVERYONE. I really don't buy a whole lot of it, and I think you had also said the same thing.

I have posted a quote from Clinton saying he passed on taking him. Clinton saying it in his own words. Take it for what you will, but Clinton admitting it vs. a political commission?

No

I would like to see him put up someone both parties can agree on. He couldn't get his own party to ram this guy through. He has no chance of getting Bolton confirmed. He's wasting our time by showing no capacity for compromise.

Consensus is the absence of leadership.

Whereas totalitarianism has so many fine points to recommend it....

NYTimes link

Removal of Rumsfeld dates back to summer.

...and Steele has been said to accept the offer as RNC Chairman.
Link

Bravo for Steele. Word around here (Maryland) is that the RNC position is to give him a paying job that allows him to stay in politics for another run in '08, '10 or '12. I look forward to his next run.

Ditto that.

I've seen you toss that Thatcher quote around here more than a few times....and it's a lame one.

No, consensus is not always the absence of leadership. Sometimes there's a consensus because the way to go is so fvcking obvious to everyone.

I said politics were played with it, but I still think it's more informative than anything else out there and I suspect if it were more critical of Clinton you and every other con would be singing it's praises.

I'd like to see the quote from Clinton.

What party is Lincoln Chafee in again?

LOL...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15651273/

He's a RINO- Republican in Name Only. Just like Zell is a DINO

Cool- anyone else is welcome to him- now if we could get rid of the rest of the RINO's it would be a happy thing.

Don't fool yourself into thinking a D or R behind someone's name means diddly when it comes to being aligned with the party beliefs. That's a joke.

I so desperately wish there were 3rd party candidates I could support...but there aren't.

And the fact remains, Bush couldn't get Bolton through the Republican-stacked house the first time. So it's hardly a matter of "only candidates that Democrats want".

If he cuts on Bolton after this thing with Rumsfeld the perception could be that he is abandoning his choices just because of the election- I think that is a mistake.

I think the perception would be that he is abandoning his choice because most people disagreed with the choice.

But so what if he pays attention to the result of the election and makes some changes? He's the one who took office in his second term talking about a "mandate". If he considered less than half of voters voting for him and winning by the absolute slimmest of margians a "mandate", what do you call the largest shift in political control in over a decade? THAT'S a mandate.

Hardly-

Hardly a mandate.

YOU want to call it a mandate- does not make it so.

On top of that the mistake would be with his own base-not the left. I have already seen anger at the resignation of Rumsfeld. Some feel that Bush lied to them- and is a traitor to the right. If he had bailed on Bolton without even trying it would have been worse.

So you're advocating party before country? Appease the base, don't worry about what the electorate feels is the right direction for the country?

I wouldn't call anything a mandate. But in the context of Bush calling his re-election a mandate, what happened this week is comparatively a violent military coup.

Bush would be stupid to not take the election results into consideration when making future choices. But, then, we ARE talking about Bush.

:rolleyes:

What an inciteful response. Gosh, you've convinced me that your points have merit.

Sometimes I get so sick of the way words get twisted here and the constant battle to be on the defense against a majority of people who seem to get a thrill out of doing just that-

so yeah- :rolleyes:

And sometimes I get so sick of someone just throwing up their hands simply because they want to get in a huff rather than have a discussion which clarifies their position.

So yeah, "Are you advocating party before country?"

I'm not in a huff.

Thanks

Of course she is! That is the Rebublican platform, isn't it? ;)

Then how about, just for once, you try explaining what you DO mean, rather than just complaining about "twisting words."

No no no! It's better to play the victim when you can't answer the questions.

:rolleyes:

And people wonder why I choose to not play nice with some of you.

:rolleyes:

Well, you ARE our chosen victim, don't you know. At least you've chosen to play that part.

Because we ask direct questions and challenge you to articulate your position fully, rather than rely on quips, soudbites, and lopsided editorials? Cripes, do you want me to go back over the last week and pull all of the direct questions you refused to answer and instead changed the subject?

I'm done playing the game of pretending it's charming and "just Neph". There are plenty of people on this board whose positions get misunderstood. You know what they do? They respond and clarify themselves. They don't whine that their "words are being twisted." So yeah, I'm done letting that crap slide. I'm going to call you on it every time because it's childish and unbecoming of this board which otherwise contains thoughtful and varied discussion of political views.

What I'm confused about about the whole Rumsfeld thing, is that for months and months Bush said that Rummy was doing a fine job and that he was staying. Now he accepts his resignation and then says that he couldn't do so before the election. Then he says that he knew he was going to let him go. So Bush lied. And flip-flopped, might I add. He was for Rumsfeld before he was against him...

One week before the election, Bush said there was no way he was getting rid of Rumsfeld. And yet, here we have evidence that it's been in the works, as you say, for months. I can't think of any clearer evidence that Bush was using Rumsfeld for party politics.

Par for the course for either party, of course.

What I don't get is Rumsfeld NOW admitting things aren't going well in Iraq. I mean, I really don't get it. Why is he saying that now? Did he believe that before the election and just wasn't saying it because he thought it would help the party? That seems...unlikely considering that the overwhelming indication was that the "staying the course" message was hurting the party a lot. Did he believe it and never say it because he didn't want to appear weak? That seems likely, but stupid considering that part of what's wrong in Iraq is that our leaders have approached it with pig-headed stuborness and one of the solutions is to simply back off and be open to the idea of altering course.

Or is he saying now because he FINALLY believes that, yes, people really are ticked off at the way he handled it and he's trying to save some face?

Some other reason? I'm baffled.

In my attempt to be more positive in my life (and failing the last couple of days :D) I must spin this thread to put dear Donald in a positive light for just a sec.



When he was younger he was a beefy hunk wrestler.
That's kinda hot.

:D

I'm not whining GD- I am refusing to participate in a conversation with a person who I feel deliberately twists things to be antagonistic.

This is not a huff- or whining. This is me not wanting to discuss things with you.

I think it has to do with the "Bush Legacy" personally. In the end he and daddy are going to do all they can to secure a place in the history books and if he can suck up just enough in the "end" of his term, I'm sure they hope they put as much as the "bad stuff" into the background as possible.

Sort of "History is written by the winners and not totally truthful." :cheers:

This may not surprise you, but I think GD has valid question. I realize that taking the stance of victim is a great way not to take a look at the actual argument but, we seem to have pretty good discussions here without a whole lot of theatrics, with one exception. I think it's time that the constant theatrics be put to rest so we can actually have decent discussions.

And, I'm not being snarky here, I'm quite serious.

You sure you don't have a headache? You aren't emotionally exhausted?

I am not deliberately twisting anything. I honestly read your justification for Bush's actions as advocating "party before country" patisan politics. If you have a different view, I'd love to hear it. That's what "?" <--- these little things mean.

But no. Your response any time someone questions what you mean is to complain about twisting your words. Until you decide to just try clarifying your position when someone misundersands you instead of instantly accusing people of purposefully going after you, which I guarantee you is not the case, this is the type of covnersation you're going to have. Over and over. Sorry if that's not what you came here for, but dealing with someone who can't have a rational debate without giving up every time they're misunderstood isn't why I come here for, so I guess we're even.

ETA: You want an example of how to handle such things? Go find where you, correctly, caught me saying things in a way I didn't mean them regarding poll workers. Did I throw my hands up, roll my eyes, and accuse you of twisting my words? No, I restated my position in a way that more accurately communicated what I meant. It's a debate technique I like to call "communication".

No headache- thanks for asking.

Nope, not emotionally exhausted- but thanks for your concern.

Neph, I have to agree with GD. This is a discussion board. Simply posting a link without providing any commentary that lends itself to a discussion doesn't really get us very far. Just my own opinion but when I see a link that someone provides, I also want to know what their view on the topic is in a way that provokes discussion. I see a lot of provoking but I don't see a lot of reasoned discussion.

Also, for the purposes of discussion, I think it is appropriate (and polite) to answer questions when they are posed to you, even the tough ones. Even "I don't know" or "I really can't answer that" is better than just ignoring the question and changing the subject.

I've always felt that if you truly believe something, you can defend it in a non-aggressive manner. Sure there is going to be occasional snark but in this case, I think what is being perceived as a pile on is merely frustration at attempts to have a reasonable discussion that are often met with being ignored or rolled eyes smilies or anger. I'd much rather you defended your positions in a way that lends itself to honest discussion because then we might better understand each others positions. Doesn't mean we will agree but that is ok too. Anything is better than repeating these catfights every few weeks.

Kinda reminds me of the Ralph Waldo Emerson quote:

Quote:

I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.

These are not "theatrics"- I am just choosing to not engage in the conversation right now. The only one calling someone a victim is you- I have never claimed it- you keep trying to give it to me.

I am being quite serious as well.

Someone tell me why my decision to back out of that conversation is such a problem for you. I have made a choice to not engage in it at this time- that does not make me a victim. It is not theatrics- it's just a choice to not continue with that vein of the discussion at the moment.

Instead of respecting that you keep at me- as if I need to respond in a certain way at a certain time. I needed to step back and wait to discuss it- and you won't let it go.

Someone's been listening to KCRW ;)

So, a lot of talk about Rummy...what about Gates? I'm cautiously optomistic. His association with Sr. is a plus. While I didn't love daddy's politics, he is a reasnaoble human being and the Gulf War was run pretty professionally. And Gates was serving on the comittee that was getting ready to make recomendations on strategy change in Iraq, so he's obviously open to reevaluation.

But then, his history of single-minded skewed world view towards blaming everything on the Soviets recalls Dubya's own propensity to try to make everything fit with his "It's all Saddam's fault" view. Hopefully Gates has grown out of that and he'll bring a more open mind to the position.

Hopefully.

Tee Hee - I've been experienceing a lot of media synergy lately
:cool:

Oh my! Very hansome. (Why does that make me feel dirty somehow?)

Words have meaning, Nephy. You should either learn to choose the ones you use more carefully, so that you are not misunderstood, or be prepared to rephrase your statements when people question their meaning.

This is not an attack, but heartfelt creative feedback.

Excuse me if I go back on topic for a moment...

CNN and others are running an interesting news story. It seems some republicans are pissed at Bush over the Rumsfeld timing. Since most Americans voted against the war, they argue that firing Rummy well ahead of the election would have helped their cause and prevented the loss of both houses. I think I have to agree, I certainly would have had a better opinion of Bush if I thought he was taking concrete measures to try and improve the situation in Iraq (ie firing him).

Which is actually what I was using to base my theory that if he bailed on Bolton too he would look like he was backpedaling and weak as far as how the base sees him....my theory may be off.

Frankly I don't know anymore.

I don't disagree that that's why he's sticking with Bolton. His stubborn refusual to change course in the face of facts is the hallmark of his Presidency. I just bristle at the thought that he's doing it as a political move to bolster his party, rather than as an actual attempt to make this country and world better. Of course, he probably figures he's got a free pass right now. Throw the nomination, which will get rejected, out there to appeal to the base, then find someone more moderate. I suspect it will backfire, though.

re: the CNN article, feh. Hindsight is 20/20. Had he dumped Rummy and they still lost, those same folks would have been moaning that he should have stayed the course.

Of course, a year ago, when Bush and Rumpunch were starting to really obstinant and totally blind to the reality of what was happening in Iraq, I was theorizing that the plan was to have the administration go off the deep end, tank the approval numbers, so Repub. candidates could safely and effectively say, "Hey, now, we don't support HIS version of the war, but we are still strong on national safety," an reel in the center of the party and the indies that were starting to drift over to the Dem side. But either they waited too long, or I was off. In which case, I have no explanation as to why Bush and company patently refused to recognize the losing (or at least stalemate) effort in Iraq.

I'm not too comfortable with Gates. Iran-Contra and all that. He was a lying creep then, and I don't think political Tigers change their stripes.

Not that I'd likely be comfortable with anyone who might be nominated to head the Dept. of Defense.



(oh, and pssst, Neph ... the way to back out of an internet discussion is to simply stop posting for a while. Writing a half dozen posts about trying to back out is NOT backing out.)

Isn't it kind of weird that Ortega is back in power in Nicaragua as well now? I wonder what we'll sell to Iran this time.

fair-e-nuff :p

I can't help it if I get addicted- like crack.....

damn- it's past my bedtime. :)

only Twilight-Zone-theme-in-my-head weird, yeah.





:confused: