View Full Version : Better late than never, I guess..........
exjersey1
11-08-2006, 01:58 PM
(edit: updated with more info)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOP Says Rumsfeld Is Stepping Down
By DAVID ESPO and LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writers
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
(11-08) 10:06 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon, Republican officials said Wednesday.
Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld.
The development occurred one day after midterm elections that cost Republicans control of the House, and possibly the Senate, as well. Surveys of voters at polling places said opposition to the war was a significant contributor to the Democratic victory.
President Bush was expected to announce Rumsfeld's departure and Gates' nomination at an afternoon news conference. Administration officials notified congressional officials in advance.
Last week, as he campaigned to save the Republican majority, Bush declared that Rumsfeld would remain at the Pentagon through the end of his term.
Rumsfeld, 74, was in his second tour of duty as defense chief. He first held the job a generation ago, when he was appointed by President Ford.
Gates is the president of Texas A&M University and a close friend of the Bush family. He served as CIA director for Bush's father from 1991 until 1993.
Gates first joined the CIA in 1966 and served in the intelligence community for more than a quarter century, under six presidents.
His nomination must be confirmed by the Senate.
Whatever confidence Bush retained in Rumsfeld, the Cabinet officer's support in Congress had eroded significantly. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the House speaker-in-waiting, said at her first post-election news conference that Bush should replace the top civilian leadership at the Pentagon.
And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had intervened in the past to shore up Rumsfeld, issued a statement saying, "Washington must now work together in a bipartisan way — Republicans and Democrats — to outline the path to success in Iraq."
leighpeas
11-08-2006, 02:39 PM
hmm
i have a friend who writes for the AP.
i think that's the only comment i have on this one.
Kalaby
11-08-2006, 03:09 PM
People exercised their rights and voted for change. Many people also got what they wanted with Rumsfeld stepping down. It should be interesting to see how things go from here.
jersey_guy
11-08-2006, 03:16 PM
It was the most wonderful 24 hours al Qaida could have dreamed of... On the bright side, Gates doesn't have a baggage that would prevent him from crushing the Iranian nuclear threat.
exjersey1
11-08-2006, 03:37 PM
J-G apparently channeling Spiro Agnew today.
Wolverine318
11-08-2006, 03:44 PM
J-G apparently channeling Spiro Agnew today.
as in the playground, QFE.
I bet J-g did a lot of heavy drinking last night.
exjersey1
11-08-2006, 04:28 PM
On the bright side, Gates doesn't have a baggage that would prevent him from crushing the Iranian nuclear threat.
????
You mean he truly played no role in Iran-Contra?
Wow, amazing to find out after all this time that everyone's been wrong about him.
Rumsfeld, 74
Didn't know he was 74.
Kalaby
11-08-2006, 05:10 PM
Didn't know he was 74.
He's been on the scene for a long time - at least since the Ford administration. With that said, I thought he was a little bit younger than that.
Amazingly fit for his age ... still plays squash!
exjersey1
11-08-2006, 05:16 PM
I just looked and found he's been serving various Presidents since Nixon starting in 1969.
Found this little nugget: In 1971 President Nixon was recorded saying about Rumsfeld ".. at least Rummy is tough enough" and "He's a ruthless little bastard. You can be sure of that."
jersey_guy
11-08-2006, 05:40 PM
I bet J-g did a lot of heavy drinking last night.
Kid, you're forgetting we still have the White House and the Supreme Court while our guy Joe Lieberman runs the table in the Senate. At least the Democrats now got a chance to show their outrageous liberalism and get involved in some major corruption scandals before 2008 rolls around.
exjersey1
11-08-2006, 06:08 PM
... or not.
What scandals are left after Foley and DeLay and friends?
Sherwood & Sweeney took care of the domestic abuse stuff.
Weldon & Ney are keeping the FBI busy, too.
Heck, this group made Newt Gingrich look positively saintly.
jersey_guy
11-08-2006, 06:19 PM
They are off to a fast start...
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/8/133323.shtml?s=ic
Wolverine318
11-08-2006, 06:21 PM
Kid, you're forgetting we still have the White House and the Supreme Court while our guy Joe Lieberman runs the table in the Senate. At least the Democrats now got a chance to show their outrageous liberalism and get involved in some major corruption scandals before 2008 rolls around.
dude, last time I checked Lieberman considers himself a true blue democrat. he only ran as an independent for relection.
I wouldn't hold your breath for corruption, as Pelosi's planned first order of business is ethics discussions when the 110 congress meets.
Wolverine318
11-08-2006, 06:22 PM
They are off to a fast start...
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/8/133323.shtml?s=ic
a family member, not the actual senator. I seem to remember other famous unruly family members of politicians.
Why dont you go back to your hole and play with pages
exjersey1
11-08-2006, 06:26 PM
good thing his Dad was only a Senator. If he'd been VP someone might have been shot.
leighpeas
11-08-2006, 07:09 PM
Amazingly fit for his age ... still plays squash!
i eat squash
Jwaksman
11-08-2006, 07:51 PM
I wouldn't hold your breath for corruption, as Pelosi's planned first order of business is ethics discussions when the 110 congress meets.
That's what EVERY minority party always says. Remember, Republicans won the House & Senate the first time by attacking Democratic corruption. If Democrats win back power then they'll be the ones committing the corruption, and we'll be back to Republicans running against corruption and budgetary largess.
MA Coach
11-08-2006, 08:09 PM
How in the world is Pelosi going to control the moderate democrats?
That should be an interesting challenge.
Sebrle
11-08-2006, 09:29 PM
He's been on the scene for a long time - at least since the Ford administration. With that said, I thought he was a little bit younger than that.
I didn't know Pelosi is 66
http://www.nndb.com/people/231/000030141/nancy-pelosi.jpg
It's often overlooked that Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense for this country when most of our current high ranking military officers were still in K-12.
The present Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was only a green O-3 during Rummy's first tour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pace
The Bush Administration's problem is that they lost people like Andrew Sullivan (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/)
In brief remarks, Rumsfeld described the Iraq conflict as a "little understood, unfamiliar war" that is "complex for people to comprehend."
He then compared himself to Churchill. Yep: still clinical. The truth is: it was Rumsfeld who little understood and was unfamiliar with the actual conflict he was tasked with managing. It was not too "complex for people to comprehend." It was relatively easy to comprehend. If you invade a post-totalitarian country and disband its military, you better have enough troops to keep order. We didn't. Rumsfeld refused to send enough. When this was made clear to him and to everyone, he still refused. His arrogant belief in a military that didn't need any actual soldiers was completely at odds with the actual task in Iraq. But he preferred to sit back as tens of thousands of Iraqis were murdered and thousands of U.S. troops died rather than to check his own ego.
So let me put this as simply as I can: Rumsfeld has blood on his hands - American and Iraqi blood. He also directly ordered and personally monitored the torture of military detainees. He secured legal impunity for his own war crimes, but that doesn't mean the Congress shouldn't investigate more fully what he authorized. He remains one of the most incompetent defense secretaries in history (McNamara looks good in comparison). But he is also a war criminal: a torturer who broke the laws of this country. The catastrophe in Iraq will stain him for ever. His record of torture has indelibly stained the United States.
jersey_guy
11-08-2006, 10:07 PM
Yes, the Bush administration really needs people who call our Secretary of Defense a war criminal. I'm sure that's where the problem is.
Kalaby
11-08-2006, 10:19 PM
I didn't know Pelosi is 66
Wow - I didn't realize that either; I would've said 8-10 years younger.
Dyenimator
11-09-2006, 02:20 AM
as in the playground, QFE.
I bet J-g did a lot of heavy drinking last night.
Didn't you do the same after the election in 2004? IIRC, you threatened to kill people on this site.
It seems clear that the country would fall into pretty sad straits
if we didn't alternate between parties from time to time -- scandal
and corruption will affect the Dems, too, if they stay in too long.
You just need to pitch the bums out every now and then.
But I am trying to remember who it was who was singing just two
years ago -- was it jwack? j_g? -- about a "permanent" Republican majority.
;)
Zat0pek
11-09-2006, 10:19 AM
It seems clear that the country would fall into pretty sad straits if we didn't alternate between parties from time to time -- scandal and corruption will affect the Dems, too, if they stay in too long. You just need to pitch the bums out every now and then.
Agreed. As I have long said, I LIKE divided government, with one party controlling Congress and the other controlling the White House. It makes for cooperation and, yes, some gridlock.
I like government gridlock. The less they do, the better! ;)
jersey_guy
11-09-2006, 10:38 AM
The less they do, the better! ;)
Except, of course, if you are on the front line of the war against Islamic terrorism and you depend on Congressional funding to keep you armed, fed, and ready to fight.
Antiwar liberals are in for a brutal disappointment. This Congress will not do anything drastic to push Iraq toward a security collapse. I guarantee you that two years down the road we will still have way over 100,000 troops in Iraq.
Kalaby
11-09-2006, 10:59 AM
It seems clear that the country would fall into pretty sad straits
if we didn't alternate between parties from time to time -- scandal
and corruption will affect the Dems, too, if they stay in too long.
You just need to pitch the bums out every now and then.
But I am trying to remember who it was who was singing just two
years ago -- was it jwack? j_g? -- about a "permanent" Republican majority.
;)
My late Dad was a strong proponent of this...even as a registered Conservative! :eek:
He used to say - "get'em the hell out" if they had overstayed their welcome.
My take is that after a long period of time in office, many politicians have become ineffective at best and completely corrupt at worst.
xcrider
11-09-2006, 11:01 AM
dude, last time I checked Lieberman considers himself a true blue democrat. he only ran as an independent for relection.
I wouldn't hold your breath for corruption, as Pelosi's planned first order of business is ethics discussions when the 110 congress meets.
Hey, maybe Ted Kennedy can be the chairman of those discussions. ;) Anyhow, I too think we are better off with a split government. One it does put some checks on the administration, but also puts responsibility on the dems. For 6 years they have been able to blame the Republicans for everything. All well and good since they have been in charge. Now let's see what they do with it.
Here in Missouri the Dems picked up 5 seats in the House, no majority, but interestingly many of them ran on the same conservative ideas the republicans ran on. I have read some of the national races were similar. If the Dems go with the moderate side, I am looking forward to the next two years.
And agree with the fact our troops are going to be in Iraq regardless.
jersey_guy
11-09-2006, 11:11 AM
Here in Missouri the Dems picked up 5 seats in the House, no majority, but interestingly many of them ran on the same conservative ideas the republicans ran on. I have read some of the national races were similar. If the Dems go with the moderate side, I am looking forward to the next two years.
America did not shift to the left - it's the Democratic Party that shifted to the right since 2002/2004. The politics in Washington changed substantially, but the policy will not.
America did not shift to the left - it's the Democratic Party that shifted to the right since 2002/2004. The politics in Washington changed substantially, but the policy will not.
I think the center of the electorate just shifted to the Democrats, for many reasons. Not just corruption among the Republicans from having been in power so long. People seem to be genuinely concerned about the war. But cultural issues still seem to matter alot as well--the debate on stem cells, evolution etc. Those sorts of issues seem to have really mattered alot in Ohio, where very conservative republicans have been aggressive in recent years on those issues. The American electorate has a big center, and they don't like extremes. Perhaps one effect of the republicans being in power for so long is not that they have become corrupt (though there is some of that), but that the hard working core believers in the party have shifted to the right and hence out of the favor of the middle.
Thats one possible hypothesis, anyway. Its a wake up call for the Republicans to attend to the mainstream in their appeals. I doubt that they will lose the Presidency in 2008. The Democrats are a rudderless party, with bad instincts
Its hard to say what a Democrat is these days. They seem to be all over the map--and there is a great deal of dissention and discussion about where the party should go. But in Chicago, my congressman, Bobby Rush, a former black panther leader, won reelection with 95% of the vote. Jesse Jackson Jr, the congressman in the neighboring district, also won with almost 95%. These guys are pretty straightforward liberal democrats. They are not committed to the same old institutions and strategies of the FDR, Kennedy, LBJ style of liberalism. But they are committed to equality, redistribution, education, healthcare, economic growth and opportunity for their districts--etc. They are more substantial and way less opportunistic than Hillary Clinton. And they have even less in common with a deeply conservative guy like Webb in Virginia. The Democratic party is like a Jackson Pollock Painting
jersey_guy
11-09-2006, 12:25 PM
The worst thing the Democrats can do now is to let their liberal wing try to push a losing issue through Congress, e.g. homosexual "marriage," higher income taxes, or a surrender in Iraq. We will find out soon enough if the Congress will be run by the Pelosis and the Kerrys or by the Liebermans and the Webbs. If it's the former, Democrats can pretty much kiss 2008 goodbye, at least when it comes to Congress.
mzungu
11-09-2006, 03:58 PM
It was the most wonderful 24 hours al Qaida could have dreamed of... On the bright side, Gates doesn't have a baggage that would prevent him from crushing the Iranian nuclear threat.
yeah, you're probably right, but how's that osama bin laden hunt going? what has happened to the number of terrorist incidents SINCE 9/11? how many u.s. soldiers and iraqis have been killed by terrorists? bush certainly didn't stop 9/11 and he has certainly failed utterly to solve the terrorist problem since. all the numbers are going in the wrong direction and that's a major reason why americans voted republicans out.
Kalaby
11-09-2006, 05:15 PM
yeah, you're probably right, but how's that osama bin laden hunt going? what has happened to the number of terrorist incidents SINCE 9/11? how many u.s. soldiers and iraqis have been killed by terrorists? bush certainly didn't stop 9/11 and he has certainly failed utterly to solve the terrorist problem since. all the numbers are going in the wrong direction and that's a major reason why americans voted republicans out.
You did happen to leave out what I regard as the biggest stat of them all...
0 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since September 11th.
You did happen to leave out what I regard as the biggest stat of them all...
0 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since September 11th.
except for the still unsolved anthrax attacks which occurred in the month after September 11...
Kalaby
11-09-2006, 05:43 PM
except for the still unsolved anthrax attacks which occurred in the month after September 11...
OK - I'll give you that, but that was on a very small scale compared to 9/11 and the major attacks that have happened around the globe in recent years. Not saying Bush gets 100% of the credit for the lack of major attacks on home soil, but if somebody is going to give him an "F" everywhere else, you have to also be able to give the administration some credit on that front whether you think it is by their hand or just blind luck.
xcrider
11-09-2006, 08:21 PM
yeah, you're probably right, but how's that osama bin laden hunt going? what has happened to the number of terrorist incidents SINCE 9/11? how many u.s. soldiers and iraqis have been killed by terrorists? bush certainly didn't stop 9/11 and he has certainly failed utterly to solve the terrorist problem since. all the numbers are going in the wrong direction and that's a major reason why americans voted republicans out.
So, someone else would have 1. not responded to the attacks, or 2. responded in a way that would not result in radical terrorists increasing attacks?
Ridiculous to fault Bush because more terrorists hate us because we attempted to strike back at them because they killed thousands of our civilians.
While it may not be a victory for the terrorists, blaming Bush for the above is blind hindsight. Yes, mistakes have been made, but unless you have some sort of crystal ball, who knows what position we would be in had some other leader been in charge. Believe it or not, it could be worse.
You did happen to leave out what I regard as the biggest stat of them all...
0 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since September 11th.
True, true Kalaby....but what was the time span of the terrorist attack on U.S. soil preceding 9/11 (excluding Tim McVeigh)? Especially an attack coming from the ilk of the administrators of 9/11?
Have to consider previous patterns.
Kalaby
11-09-2006, 10:23 PM
True, true Kalaby....but what was the time span of the terrorist attack on U.S. soil preceding 9/11 (excluding Tim McVeigh)? Especially an attack coming from the ilk of the administrators of 9/11?
Have to consider previous patterns.
There has seemingly been a pretty significant uptick in large scale terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11 - none have been on U.S. soil - that's the point I was trying to make and that's what is relevant IMO.
MA Coach
11-09-2006, 11:05 PM
Well, there was the 1st attempt on the World Trade towers.
What was the date on that?
Kalaby
11-09-2006, 11:31 PM
Well, there was the 1st attempt on the World Trade towers.
What was the date on that?
February 1993
MA Coach
11-10-2006, 12:15 AM
So that is a previous attack to establish a little bit of a pattern.
Yeah, it's fair to observe -- without denying credit to the Bush administration for tightening security in a number of ways, controversial and less so -- that there was no reason to assume that the bad guys WOULD have launched another attack just yet. Clearly they have a much longer attention span than we do here in the spoiled West.
KenA55
11-10-2006, 01:47 PM
I think its refreshing that the current administration is now showing an interest in listening to other viewpoints and advice, that's been long absent and Rumsfeld, if anything, was the personification of that obtuse stance.
I listened to a radio interview that was telling in this regard this AM- not about Rumsfeld in particular but rather about this administration's political tacticians in general. They had a SE MN schoolteacher on, a centrist who wasn't strongly partisan or political at the time and attempted to attend an '04 Bush rally in his area with a small number of his hs students. They at first were going to let him attend but not his students- then denied him entry as well despite the fact that he was a lifelong guard member and Gulf War vet- because he wouldn't pledge loyalty to Bush.
He's now the next US House Representative from MN's 1st congressional district, part of the takeover there and from a district long considered republican, unseating a 12-year incumbent who very few thought would lose, right up to election day itself.
On the other side of the coin locally, Gov Pawlenty narrowly escaped defeat at the hands of Mike Hatch, not a particularly strong candidate. Hatch has never been able previously to even get the DFL nomination despite repeated attempts, and frankly in the 'warm and personable' category Pawlenty has him outclassed by a ratio of approx 1000-1. Nevertheless Pawlenty only increased his percentage of support by just 1% or so from his first race, and we will again have a Gov with less than 50% electoral support.
We really do need 'instant run-off' preference voting systems enacted, the city of MPLS voted that in this year and hopefully the state will follow suit. They've (Dems) now have near veto-proof majorities in both statehouses, no time like the present to make that happen. Then all of the greens and other various independents can do their thing without warping the political landscape overall.
Yeah, it's fair to observe -- without denying credit to the Bush administration for tightening security in a number of ways, controversial and less so -- that there was no reason to assume that the bad guys WOULD have launched another attack just yet. Clearly they have a much longer attention span than we do here in the spoiled West.
Exactly what I was getting at.
Kalaby
11-11-2006, 10:40 AM
Yeah, it's fair to observe -- without denying credit to the Bush administration for tightening security in a number of ways, controversial and less so -- that there was no reason to assume that the bad guys WOULD have launched another attack just yet. Clearly they have a much longer attention span than we do here in the spoiled West.
Some truth to that without a doubt, but do we honestly know how many terror plots have been foiled in the 5+ years since 9/11?
Some truth to that without a doubt, but do we honestly know how many terror plots have been foiled in the 5+ years since 9/11?
Do we honestly know how many terror plots have been foiled since 1993?
Kalaby
11-11-2006, 05:52 PM
Do we honestly know how many terror plots have been foiled since 1993?
I don't and I'm sure only a select few do know for sure. With that said, I think it is probable more have been foiled since 9/11 than prior to that date if only for the fact (fact=my sense of things in this case) that acts of terrorism have been on the rise in recent years. I can't prove any of that, but that's just my gut feeling about this.
Bottom line is that nothing major has happened on U.S. soil since 9/11 - however you choose to look at that is up to the individual I suppose. I happen to give at least some of the credit to the Bush administration and certainly to the national, state and local law enforement groups that are working on stopping these types of things.
Bottom line is that nothing major has happened on U.S. soil since 9/11 - however you choose to look at that is up to the individual I suppose. I happen to give at least some of the credit to the Bush administration and certainly to the national, state and local law enforement groups that are working on stopping these types of things.
That may be sensible...but, at the same time a good deal of people also give the Bush administration credit for engendering an increase of worldwide terrorism and terrorist spawns.
Sebrle
11-11-2006, 09:02 PM
Bush made Al-Qaeda grumpier
Kalaby
11-11-2006, 09:14 PM
That may be sensible...but, at the same time a good deal of people also give the Bush administration credit for engendering an increase of worldwide terrorism and terrorist spawns.
Conceivable, but hard to say to what extent. Still, as bad as it is in many places across the globe, none of it has reached our shores since 9/11. A narrow view of things?...Yeah...but also a fact.
mzungu
11-12-2006, 01:46 AM
There has seemingly been a pretty significant uptick in large scale terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11 - none have been on U.S. soil - that's the point I was trying to make and that's what is relevant IMO.
that's very important, but you can't say that it's what is relevant when many of the attacks have killed u.s. soldiers in iraq.
also, there have been exactly two al-qaeda attacks on u.s. soil, in feb? 1993 and 9/11/2001. that's an 8 year gap right there. for all we know, they may be planning a big attack for the next transition year when the new administration may be more vulnerable in just taking office. but you suspect that if their goal were individual suicide bombs, as in iraq, they could have done it already.
Kalaby
11-12-2006, 02:14 AM
The point is that there have been plots to carry out major terrorist acts on U.S. soil over the last 5 years and they have all been stopped. How many have there been? I don't know. How many were stopped betweeen the first WTC bombing and 9/11? - I don't know. Are the "bad guys" waiting for the perfect moment to strike - yeah they probably are. Do they run the risk of getting caught the longer they wait for "the perfect time" - yes absolutely.
All I know is that the only way to measure this (for people like us that don't have classified info at our fingertips) is in absolute terms - we've staved off terrorist attacks on home soil for over 5 years. That's a good thing. What's better than that? I'll tell you - 10 years...15 years...20 years, etc. without attacks.
vBulletin v3.6.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.