Rumsfield stepping down?

[Julianna]

Agreed! This most awesome and welcome news!

The Dems take the House, its possible the Senate as well and now this! Its a new dawn in America. The flowers smell fresher and the sun is shining just a bit brighter. Now, the best and most important thing for those who voted to get rid the Gop is to hold to accoount the Dems we put there! Dont make excuses when they screw up (like so many have done for the GOP) point it out and insist they fix it! God is still ansewering prayers with this Rumsfeld news!

Absolutely, hold their feet to the fire. It is my hope that the Dems won’t seek revenge, with endless hearings, investigations and impeachment talk. Just grab the bull by the horns and go! Seeking revenge at this time is the last on the list. It is bad enough that we have to choose between the lesser of two evils…if the Dems were smart they would see this, and get to work.

Rumsfeld is the micro manager of everything. The generals have proved it so with their many calls for his resignation. Timing of the resignation is not the issue, the issue is, that he is outta there. We have enough fish to fry right here in this country without throwing ourselves into other countries cultural business. America needs to get “It’s” house in order.

Glad the elections are over…so tired of the mudslinging ads over and over, ad naseum.

Always independent/moderate.

Juli

 

[mary_bobo]

**Geopolitical Diary: Rumsfeld’s Legacy
**www.stratfor.com

I agree with much of what you say. Rumsfeld was sent to do exactly as you said, but don’t forget the always present tension between the brass at the Pentagon and the civilian Secretary… It has been so through many more administrations than this one.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Moderator: I can’t get the multi-quote function to work. I am using the quick reply and placing the tabs myself. Can you see if something is wrong? Thx.

gilliam:

Interesting view and I agree with the analysis of Rumsfeld’s failing. Bush should have replaced Rumsfeld two years ago IMHO…

Yes, I agree.

I find the terminology on these forums re Iraq befuddling. The coalition went into Iraq coupla years ago as a result of terminating the ceasefire. That was – technically – war. More precisely it was a continuation of a war which Saddam himself started in Kuwait.

The coalition overthrew Saddam’s forces in Iraq and shortly thereafter captured Saddam. So the coalition won the War in Iraq.

Then the situation turned into peace enforcement.

Rumsfeld imho did not fail inasmuch as he contributed materially to winning the war.

Rumsfeld failed in peace enforcement, although when all is said and done, he tested and deployed much of the technology and SO tactics for which he stood. (Al Massetti has a lot of info on this technology.) Those simply did not make the MSM news at six. All the lives which were saved by means of Rumsfeld’s technology and SO tactics did not make the news at six.

So Rumsfeld failed at peace enforcement – to some extent – because he lost the media war and therefore lost the bid to put enough multilateral boots on the ground to enforce the peace.

This latest turn of events I believe is simply an astute measure to turn Rumsfeld’s defeat in the area of peace enforcement into a renewed effort to deploy his technology and SO tactics in the War on Terror: a bivouac.

gilliam:

We will see how Gates makes out and what he does.

I don’t know enough about Gates to predict anything useful but surely his intelligence background will mesh nicely with Rumsfeld’s emphasis on technology and SO tactics.

Inasmuch as the media and the public have neither the patience nor background nor will to understand the new technology and special ops tactics, this is a good thing. The real damage against the terrorists will be happening in the future – as it has in the recent past – outside the eye of the media and therefore outside the eye of the terrorist propaganda machine. This will save lives and liberate many from bondage.

gilliam:

He only has 2 years, which is nothing as far as the Pentagon is concerned, so I agree he is a stop gap person.

Are you saying that the Dems will win the next election?

gilliam:

He may be able to change the course on some things. But I don’t know if he will ramp up the Army as it needs to be to fight all these small wars we will need to in the next few years.

Well, as I am trying to explain, the army no longer needs to be ramped up to win wars. Large numbers of American boots on the ground are necessary only for peace enforcement – not for winning wars.

If we can reform the UN – or dismantle it and create a more effective organization – then we can tackle peace enforcement. And I believe Bush saw the bigger picture on that score too.

gilliam:

It is funny how so many people are ignoring Somalia and Dufar, even on this forum.

Well, it is a method used to relanguage and thereby dismantle the War on Terror.

gilliam:

If the Bush Administration and the Democratic Congress were working together, maybe they could outline some short term goals that both groups could agree to and have Gates work on those.

I believe Bush’s strategy should be to stroke the Dems’ ego and distract and confuse them as much as possible while setting down a solid base from which to continue winning the War on Terror.

gilliam:

I am glad to see some moderates coming back into government.

Could you explain in a little more detail please? How are you defining ‘moderate’ within the context of border security, the proliferation of AQ cells and terror camps in NA, and the demise of Europe? This btw is a genuine request for clarity and further information and not intended as a rhetorical comment on my part.

 

[Jasny]

He’s taking one of the falls, I’m sure there will be other changes. Ironically, had Bush done before the election- like a month ago, the Republicans probably would have fared better at the polls.

I think there was no irony about it. It was planned for the Republicans to lose. .All the polls pointed to the Republican defeat, if they didn’t do something drastic. I don’t know why maybe so they have an excuse to put a pro abotion judge in the Supreme court and use the excuse that the Dems control congress.

The Dems are just as shady. Polosi looks like she cut a deal not to proceed with an impeachment of Bush. An impeachment would be SMART polotics even if they don’t suceed. It would be great publici for the Dems but it is already off the board before she even takes the speeker position. All we have is

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Polosi looks like she cut a deal not to proceed with an impeachment of Bush. An impeachment would be SMART polotics even if they don’t suceed.

Would you be kind enough to explain to me the grounds on which Bush can be impeached? A link to the legislation would be helpful. I am Canadian and don’t understand some things about American government. Thank you.

 

[Thomas_B]

Hey, at least he was honest about his lie.

I take exception with your comment about it being politically stupid. His reason was valid - he didn’t to introduce Rummy’s exit right before an election. Could he have used different wording instead of lying? Sure. What is the political effect? None. People on the Left won’t hate him any more than they already do, and he can’t be re-elected.

Does it bother me that he lied to me? Not in the least, as the lie was of no consequence. If he were Catholic, I would expect him to confess this venial sin during his next confession.

C’mon, we’re engaging in the ends justifying the means reasoning - we know that lying is wrong no matter the reason or who you are lying to. I’m not so naive to think that people, especially politicians don’t lie. But to go from a statement like “Donald Rumsfeld must stay till the end of my term” to “Yeah, I had plans to get rid of him before the election” is weird and really makes you question his credibility. I mean, he could have said something completely neutral like, “I’m happy with the job Rumsfeld has done so far” and been done with it that way. A huge turnabout like that really makes you wonder what else he is comfortable lying to the public about.

 

[gilliam]

C’mon, we’re engaging in the ends justifying the means reasoning - we know that lying is wrong no matter the reason or who you are lying to.

No, that is not true. There can be times were it is justified to lie. An easy example is to refer to telling the Nazis where Ann Frank’s house was. You cannot justify telling them by saying you cannot tell a lie.

 

[mary_bobo]

I think there was no irony about it. It was planned for the Republicans to lose. .All the polls pointed to the Republican defeat, if they didn’t do something drastic. I don’t know why maybe so they have an excuse to put a pro abotion judge in the Supreme court and use the excuse that the Dems control congress.

The Dems are just as shady. Polosi looks like she cut a deal not to proceed with an impeachment of Bush. An impeachment would be SMART polotics even if they don’t suceed. It would be great publici for the Dems but it is already off the board before she even takes the speeker position. All we have is

I don’t think a deal was cut, but I do think Pelosi will try her darnest to be a good Speaker since she is the first woman in that position. I don’t think the American people (generally) want an impeachment, they want things DONE. It is going to be very interesting to see how things play out. The Dem committee chairs are all quite liberal. Wonder how they are going to deal with the moderate and conservative Dems that were elected.

 

[Thomas_B]

No, that is not true. There can be times were it is justified to lie. An easy example is to refer to telling the Nazis where Ann Frank’s house was. You cannot justify telling them by saying you cannot tell a lie.

Unless I am missing something, I don’t believe that it is the Catholic Church’s position that lying is ever justified. Look at this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on lying.

newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm

However, “mental reservation” is morally valid, where you know something to be true, but you maintain silence for the welfare of others.

I have to admit that I would probably lie to save another person’s life. But in Bush’s case, this wasn’t even a life or death situation. He told a boldface lie because it was politically convenient and expedient for him to do so. And to try to justify it by saying he had no choice but to lie? Of course he had a choice, there were several other things he could have said. It is just disappointing when your leaders don’t even try to apologize for their failings, and makes them such bad role models for the citizenry.

 

[gilliam]

However, “mental reservation” is morally valid, where you know something to be true, but you maintain silence for the welfare of others.
.

Sounds like a way of lying to me. But I am not a theologian. St. Augustine, I think, was an advocate of the white lie.

Here is what the Catechism says:

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.
2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray. 2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#2482[

](http://javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2484.htm’)

Bush lied to protect Republicans running for office. Was it Noble? Beats me. Was it politically right? Probably, but that can be debated (and is being debated). Was it honorable? Probably not. Was it a mortal sin? Not according to what I just quoted in the Catechism.

However, he could have said something else or not answered the question at all. The problem with Bush is that he is not that good with extemporaneous speech… but the country knew that when they elected him. And being good at extemporaneous speech is not exactly the best bell weather of a good man. Kerry is good, for example, at extemporaneous speech, so was Nixon and so is Clinton.

Does anyone outside of those really, really into politics care? I doubt it. Lying to the press is a badge of courage for many.

 

[Thomas_B]

I don’t think a deal was cut, but I do think Pelosi will try her darnest to be a good Speaker since she is the first woman in that position. I don’t think the American people (generally) want an impeachment, they want things DONE. It is going to be very interesting to see how things play out. The Dem committee chairs are all quite liberal. Wonder how they are going to deal with the moderate and conservative Dems that were elected.

I imagine that they will follow a path of political accomodation and neutrality in order to stay in power. By that, I mean that they will search for issues on which they have common ground. First, I think they will tackle issues on which they may be able to make deals with Republicans, like immigration and maybe social security reform, to score early political victories. It also looks like they should be able to manage to get a minimum wage increase through pretty easily. They will have to find common ground on an exit strategy from Iraq, though that will probably take some time. And they will probably tinker with legislation to increase health coverage and probably some environmental protections. But I think they will steer away from hot button issues like gay marriage, though they will likely do something with embryonic stem cell research.

 

[gilliam]

Thomas,

Pelosi wants Murtha as her #2. Is that staying away from hot button issues?

Reid seems to have some commons sense. I am not that sure about Pelosi.

 

[Thomas_B]

Sounds like a way of lying to me. But I am not a theologian. St. Augustine, I think, was an advocate of the white lie.

No, St. Augustine’s position was clear- he held that it is never lawful to tell a lie. The difference between telling a lie and mental reservation is that in the former, one is actively deceiving others, and in the latter, they are simply not helping others that might do harm with the information.

Bush lied to protect Republicans running for office. Was it Noble? Beats me. Was it politically right? Probably, but that can be debated (and is being debated). Was it honorable? Probably not. Was it a mortal sin? Not according to what I just quoted in the Catechism.

Right, I didn’t say that Bush’s lying constituted a mortal sin.

However, he could have said something else or not answered the question at all. The problem with Bush is that he is not that good with extemporaneous speech… but the country knew that when they elected him. And being good at extemporaneous speech is not exactly the best bell weather of a good man. Kerry is good, for example, at extemporaneous speech, so was Nixon and so is Clinton.

It’s not just a matter of not being good at extemporaneous speech. It’s this tendency of his to talk in extremes, and in this case, out and out lie to the public. To go from “Rumsfeld must stay” to “I decided before the election that he should go” really damages his, and our country’s, credibility. How do you know when to take him or the US seriously? How do you know after a tough speech he’s not just going to do the opposite the next week, or that he’s not just lying to you out of political convenience? I mean, Bush just isn’t any person, he’s the president of our country and what he says and does represents us to the world.

Does anyone outside of those really, really into politics care? I doubt it. Lying to the press is a badge of courage for many.

Maybe not. But if you have a child who is interested in keeping up with current events, it sure doesn’t help to have the President of the United States set a bad example for them by lying. I was just as disgusted with Clinton when he lied about the whole Monica Lewinsky thing.

 

[gilliam]

It’s not just a matter of not being good at extemporaneous speech. It’s this tendency of his to talk in extremes, and in this case, out and out lie to the public. To go from “Rumsfeld must stay” to “I decided before the election that he should go” really damages his, and our country’s, credibility. How do you know when to take him or the US seriously? How do you know after a tough speech he’s not just going to do the opposite the next week, or that he’s not just lying to you out of political convenience? I mean, Bush just isn’t any person, he’s the president of our country and what he says and does represents us to the world.

To Bush, as it is to a lot of ranchers, loyalty is extremely important. It is important for those who report to him, and it is important to him. When you are on the range, loyalty is everything. It kinda comes down to that. I know a lot of ranchers who think this way… come to think of it, I know a lot of soldiers who think this way.

Maybe not. But if you have a child who is interested in keeping up with current events, it sure doesn’t help to have the President of the United States set a bad example for them by lying. I was just as disgusted with Clinton when he lied about the whole Monica Lewinsky thing.

Hey, compared to Clinton, this is nothing! I had a Eagle Scouts who were so disgusted with Clinton’s personal life that they didn’t want his signature on their certificates!

 

[Thomas_B]

Thomas,

Pelosi wants Murtha as her #2. Is that staying away from hot button issues?

Reid seems to have some commons sense. I am not that sure about Pelosi.

I think her backing Murtha for her #2 is a smart decision. Murtha is definitely a lot more moderate then Steny Hoyer and I think that he would help counterbalance Pelosi’s liberal reputation. I think Murtha would put people more at ease with a Democratic House. Politically I don’t think it will hurt Pelosi if he doesn’t win. Steny Hoyer has already said that he understands Pelosi backing Murtha because of their close relationship, and that he thinks he will be able to work effectively with her if he wins. I think a lot of House Democrats understand her motivation to back Murtha.

Regarding common sense, I don’t know how much Pelosi has. But I do know that she has a very good reputation as a legislative tactician.

 

[Thomas_B]

To Bush, as it is to a lot of ranchers, loyalty is extremely important. It is important for those who report to him, and it is important to him. When you are on the range, loyalty is everything. It kinda comes down to that. I know a lot of ranchers who think this way… come to think of it, I know a lot of soldiers who think this way.

Yeah, and I would have actually respected the statement if he actually stuck with Rumsfeld. And hopefully he told Rumsfeld before he gave that speech that he was going (I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did), otherwise if I were Rumsfeld, I would feel pretty darned peeved and betrayed.

Hey, compared to Clinton, this is nothing! I had a Eagle Scouts who were so disgusted with Clinton’s personal life that they didn’t want his signature on their certificates!

Yep, that was certainly a presidential lowpoint from a moral perspective. But I just don’t think we should accept or excuse any bad moral behavior from our presidents- big or small.

 

[gilliam]

Yeah, and I would have actually respected the statement if he actually stuck with Rumsfeld. And hopefully he told Rumsfeld before he gave that speech that he was going (I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did), otherwise if I were Rumsfeld, I would feel pretty darned peeved and betrayed.

If there is an error there, the fact that he stuck with Rumsfeld way too long is the error. It got to the point that most military families I know were saying under their breath that Rummy should go.

 

[Thomas_B]

If there is an error there, the fact that he stuck with Rumsfeld way too long is the error. It got to the point that most military families I know were saying under their breath that Rummy should go.

I agree with that. I was glad to see Rumsfeld go as well. I don’t know whether Rumsfeld personally made many of the critical errors in the Iraq, or if he was just following orders given to him by others. But regardless, he certainly carried the stigma of the failures in Iraq with him, and he needed to go, if for no other reason than just to signal there was some change in the US’ approach to Iraq.

Bush’s problem is that he needs to learn to tone down his tough and inflexible speaking style, especially when he knows he is going to do exactly the opposite of what he is saying the very next week.

 

[Island_Oak]

Good riddance! The only mistake Bush made in finally accepting his resignation was a strategic one (ironic don’t you think!) by doing so AFTER the mid-term elections–might have saved a few seats for his fellow party members if he had come out a week/few days sooner with the news. Guess Rove fell asleep at the switch?!

 

[gilliam]

I agree with that. I was glad to see Rumsfeld go as well. I don’t know whether Rumsfeld personally made many of the critical errors in the Iraq, or if he was just following orders given to him by others…

Rumsfeld is SECDEF, he reports to only one person: the POTUS. I doubt Bush gave him many orders on how to fight the war. Bush strikes me as a “hands off” type of administrator. He expected Rumsfeld and CENTCOM to fight the war. Bush would simply tell them to get it done.