Rumsfeld stepping down!

[dd74]

"The Donald"

[DaveE]

Originally posted by m21sniper
He is above them, and is responsible,(remember, i said MOST responsible) BUT, he did what we ALWAYS say we should do in a time of war.(it was afterall the biggest lesson of vietnam)

He let the people in charge of fighting wars fight the war.

UNFORTUNATELY, the people doing it(mostly the five named above) were incompetent morons.

The Iraq war was a perfectly sound strategic move, but it might as well have been implemented by 5 year olds.

Obviously you and I disagree on whether it was a war that even needed to be fought at that time and he was responsible for THAT decision. Our attention was better focused on finishing our business in Afghanistan, since it was directly related to the 9/11 attacks. Iraq has been a disasterous diversion that had nothing to do with 9/11. That was Bush's mistake.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JeremyD
four more years and we'll be sick and tired of their crap too

Since the Bush'ists continued much of the Democrats five decades of sociofascist policies dating from the horrendous New Deal, I'm tired of them already.

Still, the change may actually get Bush to veto legislation for a change, one would hope.

Bush should of course resign.

[m21sniper]

DaveE- Yes, we absolutely disagree on that count.

The war in Iraq- based on what we thought we knew- made perfect sense in 2003 from a geo-political stand point.

And contrary to popular belief, it was one of the 'most legal' wars in US history.

I do FULLY agree that the 'business' in A-stan should've been more fully developed before we went traipsing across the ME though.

Of course HAD we done it right, the War in Iraq would've been a total success, served as a great deterrent to the enemy, and we'd again be fully re-focused on A-stan now.

On the topic of A-stan....i hope no one here is under the illusion that 'victory' is possible there. A-stan is an open sore on the face of the modern world, and it will never be healed until th A-stanis themselves (and even moreso the tribal pakistanis) decide they no longer wish to live in the 5th century.

A-stan, we(as in the west) are going to be there for decades.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by fastpat
Since the Bush'ists continued much of the Democrats five decades of sociofascist policies dating from the horrendous New Deal, I'm tired of them already.

Still, the change may actually get Bush to veto legislation for a change, one would hope.

Bush should of course resign.

I agree with everything but the last sentence.

Bush resigning serves no useful purpose- to us.

The enemy, they would LOVE that though. It would show they're "Winning", even moreso than last night's results have already shown.

And besides, i want Cheyney in power almost as much as i want you in power.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by m21sniper
??????

The best thing for this nation and his party would be....you know....victory in Iraq.

Since that was never possible, under any known set of circumstances, why even bring it up?

There will be no US government victory in Iraq unless you consider handing the country over to Shi'ia fundamentalists a victory.

The US government must be forced to leave Iraq, and should hand over a lot of powerful weapons to the Sunni's as it heads for the door. They just may survive, and continue to protect the few remaining Christians and Jews in Iraq.

[tabs]

M21 Sniper....I know what U bin readin..."Fiasco"...

Are U sure your not me coming in under another name?

I have more hope for Afgan than I do Iraq...Musarraf just told his Military commanders that he is going to stamp out Terrorism in Pakistan...as I said he has a Tiger by the Tail and has one foot on a Banana Peel. IfMushie goes we are fked in pakistan and might as well jsut surrender to the Jihadies....cause Al Qaeda will have the BOMB....

[lendaddy]

I gotta say I really liked Rummy.

What do you attribute his assumed (he says the generals set the troop levels) pushing for "low" troop levels?

Are you saying there's a sinister motivation or just a good 'Ole fashioned "bad plan"?

[dd74]

Originally posted by m21sniper

Bush resigning serves no useful purpose- to us.

And besides, i want Cheyney in power almost as much as i want you in power.

I don't think there's a single "moderate" Dem. with an ounce of forethought who'd want to see Bush resign. And he seems like he's man enough to not "cut and run" like Rumsfeld.

And who's to say Cheney would even want to be president? His heart would probably give out with the pressure of the responsibility.

As I said, now we'll get to see how good or how bad a president Bush can be. He is most definitely in uncharted waters, and now no longer with one of his top lieutenants.

The Dems have to rise to the occasion, but so must Bush to save what little respect he can before his second term ends.

[Bobboloo]

Originally posted by m21sniper
DaveE- Yes, we absolutely disagree on that count.

The war in Iraq- based on what we thought we knew- made perfect sense in 2003 from a geo-political stand point.

And contrary to popular belief, it was one of the 'most legal' wars in US history.

I do FULLY agree that the 'business' in A-stan should've been more fully developed before we went traipsing across the ME though.

Of course HAD we done it right, the War in Iraq would've been a total success, served as a great deterrent to the enemy, and we'd again be fully re-focused on A-stan now.

On the topic of A-stan....i hope no one here is under the illusion that 'victory' is possible there. A-stan is an open sore on the face of the modern world, and it will never be healed until th A-stanis themselves (and even moreso the tribal pakistanis) decide they no longer wish to live in the 5th century.

A-stan, we(as in the west) are going to be there for decades.

The war in Iraq was not only illegal it was also immoral. These were and are my feelings before and after the initial invasion.

To think the war was "just" mishandled and could have been won had things been done differently is just hindsight and a repeat of the initial debocle made by the Bush administration.

Yes we may have the strongest military in the world but the outcome in Iraq shows regardless of military strength they aren't buying what we're selling and no level of our military force or torture will make them see things our way.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by dd74
He is most definitely in uncharted waters, and now no longer with one of his top lieutenants.

Actually Bush received high praise for his bi-partison results in Texas, it was his claim to fame. That may be what he does best.

This of course assumes we want the results.....I doubt I will, but I bet you dems will be happy

[dd74]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I gotta say I really liked Rummy.

What do you attribute his assumed (he says the generals set the troop levels) pushing for "low" troop levels?

Are you saying there's a sinister motivation or just a good 'Ole fashioned "bad plan"?

Iraq was as much about PR as it was a "bad plan." Remember Cheney stating the Iraqis will put flowers in the gun barrels of our troops, or some such baloney? And ex-CIA chief Tenant (I think), calling Iraq a "slam dunk?" Well, low troop levels played into both of those dillusions. The Administration wanted Iraq to look easy when in fact it was easy for the insurgents to kill almost 3,000 American troops.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by dd74
Iraq was as much about PR as it was a "bad plan." Remember Cheney stating the Iraqis will put flowers in the gun barrels of our troops, or some such baloney? And ex-CIA chief Tenant (I think), calling Iraq a "slam dunk?" Well, low troop levels played into both of those dillusions. The Administration wanted Iraq to look easy when in fact it was easy for the insurgents to kill almost 3,000 American troops.

Actually he said WMD's was a "slam dunk" but that's neither here nor there.

Rummy didn't create the war, he attempted to manage it, so I was asking what you think his motivation was to understaff it.

[dd74]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Actually Bush received high praise for his bi-partison results in Texas, it was his claim to fame. That may be what he does best.

This of course assumes we want the results.....I doubt I will, but I bet you dems will be happy

In re. to Bush's bi-partisan triumphs in Texas: so what?

In re. to "results" - I have no idea what you're talking about.

In re. to "you dems" - no idea who "you dems" are unless you're going after the "with us or against us" train of thought where if one disagrees with policy, that means they are a foe.

As you recall, many moderates and Republicans voiced opposition to Bush's actions. I don't think those moderates and Republicans are, necessarily, "dems." Maybe the diehard and obstinate neocons now do, but many others beyond that small minority of Americans do not.

[Dottore]

Originally posted by m21sniper


Tried for what?

They commited no crimes but incompetence.

I think at Nuremberg the charge was "Crimes Against Humanity". That would work here.

[dd74]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Actually he said WMD's was a "slam dunk" but that's neither here nor there.

Rummy didn't create the war, he attempted to manage it, so I was asking what you think his motivation was to understaff it.

WMDs was the reason for the war, but that's neither here nor there.

Rumsfeld was chief architect of the war - neither here nor there as well.

Chief architect presents "the case for" and one of the cases for Iraq was it was an easy war where victory was assured - more than 40,000 troops unneeded.

Yep, Rumsfeld knew his stuff, alright.

[Moneyguy1]

Rummy was a loyalist, given a shovel and asked to clean out the Aegean Stables. A thankless task, impossible to accomplish, but he gave it a try. Misguided as the administration was, I respect the man's devotion. It was, as far as I can figure, not his call to go to war in the first place, although I might be wrong on that. I am not a White House insider.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by dd74
No, Nancy Pelosi becomes president. Hastert is gone...

Nancy does not become Speaker until January. And there will be a special session between now and then...

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by dd74
In re. to Bush's bi-partisan triumphs in Texas: so what?

In re. to "results" - I have no idea what you're talking about.

In re. to "you dems" - no idea who "you dems" are unless you're going after the "with us or against us" train of thought where if one disagrees with policy, that means they are a foe.

As you recall, many moderates and Republicans voiced opposition to Bush's actions. I don't think those moderates and Republicans are, necessarily, "dems." Maybe the diehard and obstinate neocons now do, but many others beyond that small minority of Americans do not.

I was simply pointing out that Bush has a good track record of producing "results" rather than stagnation when the opposing party is in power. Whether those results are good or bad is open to interpretation.

If you don't care....well great I guess, I got nothing for you.

I have no idea where you're going with that second paragraph unless you don't want to be called a Dem? Actually I understand that and apologize for such a vicious insult

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by dd74
WMDs was the reason for the war, but that's neither here nor there.

Rumsfeld was chief architect of the war - neither here nor there as well.

Chief architect presents "the case for" and one of the cases for Iraq was it was an easy war where victory was assured - more than 40,000 troops unneeded.

Yep, Rumsfeld knew his stuff, alright.

Was there an answer in there? I gather you just think he's a bumbling idiot then?

Don't you have a real theory?