Rumsfeld stepping down!

[dd74]

Originally posted by 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.

There's a line of dialogue for that: I think it's, "I was just following orders."

[dd74]

Originally posted by red-beard
Nancy does not become Speaker until January.

Yeah, well Bush and Cheney probably need a couple months to find the door out.

[Chocaholic]

Seems to me, that the timing of this "step-down" is awfully coincidental. Considering Rumsfeld's lack of popularity, if he'd have "stepped-down" two weeks ago, the Republicans might have maintained the majority.

Makes you wonder if this isn't exactly what they wanted.

[dd74]

Originally posted by lendaddy
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

Texas isn't the U.S., and he was governor a decade ago. So that's why I suggest yours is a poor comparison.

As to you vicious insult, apology accepted.

I'm sorry for the Republicans to lose the House and (it looks like) the Senate.

[Moneyguy1]

dd...

"Ja Wohl...."

[fastpat]

Originally posted by m21sniper
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.

While America has few or no enemies, the US government has plenty, nearly as many within US borders as there are in foreign lands.

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

We'd have to impeach him at the same time. Keep in mind though, there's not enough votes to convict either in the Senate, just like for Clinton. Of course that might change if one of us catches Cheney with those young boys.

[dd74]

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

Don't you have a real theory?

Sure. But apparently it's a theory you're not able to face, unless you really are ignorant about this instead of merely playing a fool.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by dd74
Sure. But apparently it's a theory you're not able to face, unless you really are ignorant about this instead of merely playing a fool.

Rumsfeld has served in six administrations(from both parties) and has more international diplomacy experience than most anyone else in government.

If you dismiss him as an idiot I think it says more about you than him. A little too lazy for my taste...but expedient to be sure!

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Here's to hopes and beautiful dreams. . .

OhpleaseOhpleaseOhplease. . .

[dd74]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Rumsfeld has served in six administrations(from both parties) and has more international diplomacy experience than most anyone else in government.

If you dismiss him as an idiot I think it says more about you than him. A little too lazy for my taste...but expedient to be sure!

You only have to be an idiot once and go down as one to be one historically...

If you don't believe that, well, I guess there's many allowances for many men of ill-repute.

1) Nixon loved his dog.

2) Clinton didn't really have sex with that intern.

3) Mussolini got all the trains to run on time.

4) Hitler was instrumental in building the Autobahn.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Rumsfeld has served in six administrations(from both parties) and has more international diplomacy experience than most anyone else in government.

If you dismiss him as an idiot I think it says more about you than him. A little too lazy for my taste...but expedient to be sure!

An idiot, no. Morally and ethically bankrupt, certainly.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by fastpat
An idiot, no. Morally and ethically bankrupt, certainly.

See, atleast Pat has a theory

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]Since that was never possible, under any known set of circumstances, why even bring it up?

That is a completely ridiculous assertion.

Almost as stupid as your analysis of that military video yesterday.

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

It remains to be seen who will sieze power in Iraq, or under what circumstances, but one possibility is a poliitcal partition of the nation along ethnic lines, and yes, that would clearly be a 'victory' for us.

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.

Have you ever even talked to ANYONE who's served there?

It was the Sunni that started the civil war to BEGIN WITH!

LOL....wow...You're a loop job.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Rumsfeld has served in six administrations(from both parties) and has more international diplomacy experience than most anyone else in government.

If you dismiss him as an idiot I think it says more about you than him. A little too lazy for my taste...but expedient to be sure!

In the eyes of this ex-trooper, he is an idiot of the first order.

Good riddance!

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]While America has few or no enemies, the US government has plenty, nearly as many within US borders as there are in foreign lands.

Your views are simply bizarre.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by 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....

Pakistan is a ticking (nuclear) time bomb, that's for damned sure.

[m21sniper]

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

No cuz, he attempted to MICRO-manage it.

One question: Do you know what the TPFDL is?

If not, allow me to explain.

It is a highly complex computer generated program that lists, in specific order, the exact units and deployment timetables for a military operation based on specific and highly complex input data. We invested massive monies and efforts to get the system up and running, and it was a complete success in several conflicts, starting with(IIRC) Desert Storm.

Rumsfeld, in his infinite wisdom, did not like the force levels that the TPFDL spit out, so he simply THREW IT OUT.(this is detailed at length in the Book Cobra II).

Rumsfeld is a MORON.

[m21sniper]

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

Perhaps in your deluded "blame america first" leftist fantasies, but nowhere else, and certainly not in reality.

Jesus...talking to some of you leftists is like talking to someone who was just hit on the head by a cinder block.

Attending medic: "What day is it?"

Wounded liberal: "BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL! HE STOLE THE ELECTION!"

[m21sniper]

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.

It has not been "Easy for the insurgents" to kill 3000 americans.

We lost more men on the fist day at Iwo Jima than we've lost in 3 years in Iraq. So historically, given the length of the conflict, this is a brilliant campaign wrt the amount of casualties we've suffered...it's just that in every other way it has failed....

As far as the cheyney comment, as the lead elements of the US Army advance into Iraq approached Nassiriyah they were atually instructed to "Expect parades", and were further instructed to be prepared to hand out thousands of little american flags they'd been issued, for photo ops.

Um, Whoops...

The generals running the war, from Shinseki, to Wallace, to Abizaid, made all kinds of predictions of doom and gloom even BEFORE the war started based on Rummy and Franks force levels and plans.

They were flatly ignored(and often put to pasture).

[dd74]

Originally posted by lendaddy
See, atleast Pat has a theory

That's an observation, not a theory.