Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2006, 07:54:22 AM
Limbaugh's comment: "Well, why didn't he just resign last week, then?"
fistful's comment: Let's see how well his replacement will do.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 08, 2006, 07:56:30 AM
FWIW, I consider him the best cabinet member and the best SecDef we've ever had. How ya like them apples!
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2006, 07:57:43 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on November 08, 2006, 08:07:41 AM
Quote
FWIW, I consider him the best cabinet member and the best SecDef we've ever had
I'm not quite so sure. FWIW, I have no military experience, but I do work with a lot (as in half or more of this office) retired and reservist military. I never hear anybody sing his praises, but I have heard a lot of folks complain about him. Some of the folks here have been to Iraq since the war started. None of them doubt our mission, just how he's running things.Chris
Post by: The Rabbi on November 08, 2006, 08:12:08 AM
The military has many entrenched interests and they dont take kindly to people interfering in that. Even people who are their superiors.
Special forces love him btw.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 08, 2006, 08:14:12 AM
Post by: wingnutx on November 08, 2006, 08:17:53 AM
Post by: charby on November 08, 2006, 08:21:08 AM
He'll be spending too much time in congressional investigations to have time to be secdef, anyway.
I was thinking the same thing last night as I watched the results.
-C
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2006, 08:25:58 AM
Oops. O.K. It is on the wires now that he is resigning. Too bad. But I guess he felt he would have been the lightening rod for a lot of criticism of the administration.
I'm listening to the Press Conference right now, and the reporters keep asking him when he (Bush) decided to dump Rummy. If he did not make the decision, I imagine he would tell them so. He's clearly speaking of it as his decision. Like you said, Rumsfeld has one master.
Post by: Cosmoline on November 08, 2006, 08:29:51 AM
Post by: Leatherneck on November 08, 2006, 08:41:44 AM
Intel guys don't operate the same as fighters like Rumsfeld.
TC
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2006, 08:54:00 AM
Found this bit at Wikipedia. Cute little slam.
Quote
While at Indiana University, Gates was recruited to join the Central Intelligence Agency. But before joining the CIA full-time as an intelligence analyst, he spent two years in the Air Force; one job was giving intelligence briefings to ICBM missile crews at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. (The CIA offered no escape from the draft during the Vietnam War.)
Post by: lumpy on November 08, 2006, 09:15:19 AM
Quote
consider him the best cabinet member and the best SecDef we've ever had. How ya like them apples!
apparently you're a bigger fan than Bush.
Quote
Anybody want to speculate on Mr. Gates?
I don't have much problem with him... But I do think that the Iran Contra thing will come back to haunt him.
Post by: roo_ster on November 08, 2006, 09:33:26 AM
Rummy was what the services needed: a swift kick in the arse. I have little sympathy for entrenched bureaucrats with brass on their colars who whine when their little fiefdom is rocked by pointed questions and ascerbic replies.
I will always hold dear his response to some numb-nutted limey reporter who asked why we were using 2000 lb bombs in Afganistan. "We are trying to kill the Taliban with them."
Post by: HankB on November 08, 2006, 09:40:46 AM
And we'll see if the JAG lawyers under SecDef Gates (assuming he's confirmed) are still waiting to prosecute (or at least investigate) practically every instance of troops killing too many Iraqis when they shoot back in a firefight.
Post by: Jamisjockey on November 08, 2006, 09:49:34 AM
In Jan, there will be new chairs of the subcommittes. The defense subcommitte would have brought Rummy in to berate, belittle, and beat him up.
Post by: lumpy on November 08, 2006, 10:31:24 AM
Quote
Rummy was what the services needed: a swift kick in the arse
in the form of IEDs on non uparmored hummers? He failed by every measure. Which means that next he'll get a medal of freedom.
Post by: cordex on November 08, 2006, 10:40:30 AM
Quote
in the form of IEDs on non uparmored hummers?
Lumpy, this is not to be specifically critical of you but your comment brought something to mind.Is anyone else tired of people who simultaneously scream about how horrible defense spending is while bemoaning the poorly equipped soldiers? I'm not sure which one the Democrats are really concerned about.
I'm no champion of Bush or the Republicans, but that kind of rampant hypocrisy grates on me. Just pick a side and stick with it.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 08, 2006, 10:42:55 AM
Quote
in the form of IEDs on non uparmored hummers?
Lumpy, this is not to be specifically critical of you but your comment brought something to mind.Is anyone else tired of people who simultaneously scream about how horrible defense spending is while bemoaning the poorly equipped soldiers? I'm not sure which one the Democrats are really concerned about.
I'm no champion of Bush or the Republicans, but that kind of rampant hypocrisy grates on me. Just pick a side and stick with it.
I'd like to see what measures Lumpy uses to assert Rumsfeld failed in every way.
Post by: AJ Dual on November 08, 2006, 10:46:58 AM
The only reason is this:
In Jan, there will be new chairs of the subcommittes. The defense subcommitte would have brought Rummy in to berate, belittle, and beat him up.
In Jan, there will be new chairs of the subcommittes. The defense subcommitte would have brought Rummy in to berate, belittle, and beat him up.
I'll +1 on that.
Rumsfeld is going to be spending lots of time in the center ring of the Democrat's dog 'n pony show that starts in January. Whatever you think of him, pro or con, it's better to have someone who'll be able to fill the post of SecDef full time.
However, he's got a pretty sharp tounge, the Democrats should be careful what they wish for, they just might get it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2006, 11:05:34 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on November 08, 2006, 11:08:24 AM
I don't know how to measure Rumsfeld's job performance, but I would also like to see lumpy's and Rabbi's "metrics." Love that brand-new noun.
I dont know that I need to give a "metric." But if I did it would be loyalty to the President I serve (at least in public), and standing up to the entrenched bureaucracy.
Post by: cordex on November 08, 2006, 11:09:57 AM
You miss the point, Cordex. That's the beauty of it. You can have it both ways. When asked what you would do to improve it you could make noises about "better priorities", "putting out troops first", and (my favorite) "cutting wasteful spending."
That's true. When a party is in the minority (whether by a little like the Democrats, or a lot like the Libertarians, Constitutions, Greens, Natural Laws, etc.) it is easy to support conflicting ideals without having to actually commit to any given position. However, now that the Dems control at least part of the legislature it will be interesting to see what - if anything - they actually do to commit themselves and which direction they go with it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2006, 11:20:22 AM
I dont know that I need to give a "metric." But if I did it would be loyalty to the President I serve (at least in public), and standing up to the entrenched bureaucracy.
How about a good showing in contemporary military conflicts? But as I said, I don't know how to measure.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 08, 2006, 11:20:48 AM
As far as anything substantive, fuhgeddaboutit.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 08, 2006, 11:24:08 AM
I dont know that I need to give a "metric." But if I did it would be loyalty to the President I serve (at least in public), and standing up to the entrenched bureaucracy.
How about a good showing in contemporary military conflicts? But as I said, I don't know how to measure. I don't know how much of that is under the control of the SecDef.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2006, 11:26:17 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on November 08, 2006, 11:35:31 AM
The Dems will go on a crusade to "clean up the culture of dishonesty" and launch numerous congressional probes with special investigators. These will refer indictments and charges against senior and junior members of the administration. Said members will resign and spend the next two years fighting in courts, bankrupting themselves in the process. At the end the courts will agree there was nothing actionable in what they did and clear them completely. But by then the 2008 election will be over.
As far as anything substantive, fuhgeddaboutit.
As far as anything substantive, fuhgeddaboutit.
As if on cue. I did not see this article before posting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_ge/eln_democrats_in_charge_glance
Notice all the "oversight" they plan on exercising. That is nothing other than witch hunting. I'll bet admin officials will be leaving in droves to avoid this one.
Post by: roo_ster on November 08, 2006, 11:53:50 AM
The Democrats will protect our soldiers by making sure they practice safe sex.
With each other.
Post by: lumpy on November 08, 2006, 12:40:08 PM
Quote
Notice all the "oversight" they plan on exercising
In case you hadn't noticed that is founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. Failure to do "oversight" was also one of the reasons why the right lost this round.
If the Dems did everything in that article I would suggest that they would sweep everything in 2008.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 08, 2006, 01:00:17 PM
What they are proposing is not oversight, but witch hunting and pay back.
Post by: Nightfall on November 08, 2006, 01:18:52 PM
The Democrats will protect our soldiers by making sure they practice safe sex.
fistful, come on. You know that's absurd.They'll just start giving out tax-payer funded partial-birth abortions.
(it's scary that I'm only half joking...)
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 08, 2006, 04:29:29 PM
Quote
In case you hadn't noticed that is founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. Failure to do "oversight" was also one of the reasons why the right lost this round.
What we're about to endure isn't oversight, it's headhunting. It's vendetta. Bush musta smoked some seriously strong crack last night if he thought canning Rumsfeld was a good idea. The Jihadists will love it. The liberals will come to think that their senseless, tireless barrage of hatemongering and unfounded accusations is working. Now they'll crank it up as much as they can, confident they can make some other heads roll too.
While our soldiers are fighting in Iraq, their leaders will be back home in Washington holding congressional hearings. They'll spend the next few years screaming bloody murder about how awful the war is, about how it wasn't justified, about how their senior leadership is no good, about how they're dying for nothing, about howBush should be impeached, about how we're losing, and all the rest of the leftist tripe we've heard for the past 3 years but have been largely able to ignore. There won't be any ignoring it now. Our soldiers can handle that, but then Bush had to go and give away the farm by firing Rumsfeld?
The Jihadists will hear all about it. They take it as a sign that they're winning. They'll redouble their efforts. Right after they finish patting themselves on the back for influencing an American election.
Face it, America, the terrorists won this round. They got Spain to cave by bombing one of their trains. Now they got America to cave by exploiting our own media and leftists. They're winning, and it's nobody's fault but our own.
President Bush, you lost my support the moment you fired Rumsfeld. Last night it was just an election we lost. This afternoon YOU, Mr. President, compounded the damage tenfold. 100-fold. YOU handed the Jihadists their biggest victory yet. After all that our nation, and especially our soldiers, have achieved in this war, YOU went and undid most of it this afternoon when you fired Rumsfeld.
Losing an election is a minor inconvenience. Losing this war will be disasterous. Damn you, Mr. President. Damn you!
We will rue this day. Mark my words.
Post by: lumpy on November 08, 2006, 04:37:38 PM
Quote
What we're about to endure isn't oversight, it's headhunting. It's vendetta.
another prediction?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 08, 2006, 08:42:26 PM
Quote
What we're about to endure isn't oversight, it's headhunting. It's vendetta.
another prediction?
Post by: lumpy on November 08, 2006, 08:46:11 PM
btw: did you notice the rise in the market today? they seem to like divided gov.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 08, 2006, 09:09:28 PM
The market has been rising steadily for months. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove a correlation between recent market rises and yesterday's election. (My dog woke up happy this morning. Maybe he likes divided government, too.
)
Post by: 280plus on November 09, 2006, 01:09:39 AM
Quote
btw: did you notice the rise in the market today? they seem to like divided gov.
It actually seemed hesitant all day and only rose marginally near the end.Quote
The Jihadists will hear all about it. They take it as a sign that they're winning. They'll redouble their efforts. Right after they finish patting themselves on the back for influencing an American election.
Face it, America, the terrorists won this round. They got Spain to cave by bombing one of their trains. Now they got America to cave by exploiting our own media and leftists. They're winning, and it's nobody's fault but our own.
It's nice to know I'm not alone when I think like this. You're right, they've got us right where they want us, divided right down the middle. And I would venture they KNEW this would come about. They know us better than we know ourselves.
Face it, America, the terrorists won this round. They got Spain to cave by bombing one of their trains. Now they got America to cave by exploiting our own media and leftists. They're winning, and it's nobody's fault but our own.
Post by: Leatherneck on November 09, 2006, 02:27:27 AM
TC
Post by: lumpy on November 09, 2006, 06:24:37 AM
Quote
It actually seemed hesitant all day and only rose marginally near the end.
I guess my point was that the business world didn't end... although I'm not sure how long things will hold once gas starts going up again. but interestingly it rose marginally to another new high.
by the way, interesting article on Gates in the Congressional Quarterly... I'd forgotten that he's been nominated for the post before and withdrew over intelligence fixing issues.
http://www.cq.com/public/20061108_homeland.html
I'm guessing Rumsfeld resigned now so that Gates could get confirmed with this senate.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 09, 2006, 01:57:33 PM
Quote
It's looking more and more like Vietnam redux, brought to you by many of the very same people.
My friend, that's what it looked like from the beginning, except Nationalist and uber-patriotic tripe managed to cover most of the scent.
Rumsfeld learned nothing from McNamara, and Bush is incapable of learning...
Rummy resigned so he wouldn't get fired, and he would -- eventually -- get fired due to poor performance.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 09, 2006, 02:21:12 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on November 09, 2006, 04:20:27 PM
Quote
It's looking more and more like Vietnam redux, brought to you by many of the very same people.
My friend, that's what it looked like from the beginning, except Nationalist and uber-patriotic tripe managed to cover most of the scent.
Rumsfeld learned nothing from McNamara, and Bush is incapable of learning...
Rummy resigned so he wouldn't get fired, and he would -- eventually -- get fired due to poor performance.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 10, 2006, 03:15:35 AM
Post by: roo_ster on November 10, 2006, 04:15:56 AM
Yes, the blame-America-for-every-ill-in-the-world crowd uses the terms nationalist and nationalism in a pejorative manner.
The terms patriot & patriotism get similar treatment.
Post by: roo_ster on November 10, 2006, 04:20:59 AM
The American troops believe in the mission they serve. Interestingly, the Times [jfruser: see quote below]-- which does not back the Iraq war -- gives an extended forum for these men to express their support for their mission and the man who sent them there to complete it. They want to see Iraq succeed, and even now want to stay until it happens.
It's an interesting point of view, and one that may surprise many who claim that the best way to support the troops is to have them retreat. Will that "support" turn to scorn when they realize the troops want to stay? After all, these men will have openly endorsed the policy of forward engagement that critics find so objectionable.
It's an interesting point of view, and one that may surprise many who claim that the best way to support the troops is to have them retreat. Will that "support" turn to scorn when they realize the troops want to stay? After all, these men will have openly endorsed the policy of forward engagement that critics find so objectionable.
If Ezekiel is any indication, the answer to the bolded portion is "Yes."
Half of America and the upper echelons of the US military may be cheering Donald Rumsfelds resignation from the post of Defence Secretary, but there was no rejoicing yesterday among those most directly affected by his decisions: the frontline soldiers in Iraq.
Troops expressed little pleasure at the departure of the man responsible for their protracted deployment to a hostile country where 2,839 of their comrades have died.
Indeed, some members of the 101st Airborne Division and other troops approached by The Times as they prepared to fly home from Baghdad airport yesterday expressed concern that Robert Gates, Mr Rumsfelds successor, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, might seek to wind down their mission before it was finished.
Mr Rumsfeld made decisions, he stuck with them and he did what he thought was right, whether people agreed with it, liked it, or not , Staff Sergeant Frank Notaro said. He insisted that Iraq was better off now than before the war.
Staff Sergeant Michael Howard said: Its a blow to the military. He was a good Secretary of Defence. He kept us focused. He kept the leaders focused. Its going to be hard to fill his shoes.
Troops expressed little pleasure at the departure of the man responsible for their protracted deployment to a hostile country where 2,839 of their comrades have died.
Indeed, some members of the 101st Airborne Division and other troops approached by The Times as they prepared to fly home from Baghdad airport yesterday expressed concern that Robert Gates, Mr Rumsfelds successor, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, might seek to wind down their mission before it was finished.
Mr Rumsfeld made decisions, he stuck with them and he did what he thought was right, whether people agreed with it, liked it, or not , Staff Sergeant Frank Notaro said. He insisted that Iraq was better off now than before the war.
Staff Sergeant Michael Howard said: Its a blow to the military. He was a good Secretary of Defence. He kept us focused. He kept the leaders focused. Its going to be hard to fill his shoes.
Post by: peteinct on November 10, 2006, 08:58:20 AM
pete