Donald Rumsfeld Resigning
 

CNN has just announced that "sources say" Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down. This momentous day just keeps getting moment-ier. :p

Just heard it on Air America. I'm rejoicing!!!!

While I can't say I'm sad to see him go, I'm just worried about what numb nut they will put in his place. I just hope it's someone that listens to his military commanders. You know, the people that actually know how to plan and fight a war.

Limbaugh is all verklemped..... he had to "go to commercial and will be back to address this".

There are two ways to see this, I think.

One is that the Administration actually heard what America said yesterday, and took the massive "NO" vote on business-as-usual in Iraq as their new mandate. I'd love to think this is the case, but I confess, I think it's unlikely.

The other is that Rumsfeld, seeing the turning of the tides, is getting off the Impeachment ship before it sails. Not very "magnanimous in victory" of me, but there it is.

It'll be very interesting to hear what Bush says about this in an hour or so.

He's probably leaving to spend more time with his family

:lol:

......................

rumsfeld fell on his sword.
it is about fucking time.

but i have no doubt that this was in the works for a while and its timing is about as accidental as that of the saddam hussein verdict.
we'll see what this translates into.

the ny times says robert gates will be nominated to replace him.
anyone know about him?

Ex CIA director Bob Gates is in....I <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2140200&postcount=4">posted this</a> about him, recently. Has he already said too much? Will he pull US troops out of the losing cause in Afghanistan, first, or the losing cause in Iraq, first?

Wow, that's another prediction gone right for me. I'm thinking I oughta go pick some lotto numbers. ;-)

Seriously though this is huge, but not unexpected. More important is that it is overall the right thing to do for all parties involved. The Dems get him out like we wanted and that'll help clean up the Pentagon. The White House doesn't look weak because they stood by him hard and fast and it's clear that he is leaving because he feels it's the right thing to do for the party not because the administration backed down. And the Repubs get to save a little face by losing a divisive, contraversial figure and put on a more moderate face by getting a more middle of road man (or woman) in the Pentagon.

My God Bush is an idiot.

He was talking about Foley's seat and stated "I did everything I could to save it, except going down to Sugarland and telling them how to fill in the write-in slot on the ballot."

What a fucking ego.

So is gates a good choice, or a crony?

from: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/08/D8L92B880.html

Claire McCaskill, newly elected from Missouri, made it abundantly clear in an interview with CNN last night that she would be calling for Rumsfeld's resignation as soon as she got to Washington.

Looks like that's one issue she won't have to focus on.

I think by electing candidates like McCaskill, the United States made their feelings about Iraq very obvious.

We are cracking open a nice bottle of wine to celebrate all this tonight. We were so excited about the House, and are very optimistic about the Senate (c'mon VA, big money, big money...) but THIS! THIS IS INCREDIBLE. Fuckin' eh... RUMSFELD. Outstanding, simply outstanding.

I wonder how the troops in Iraq feel about this one, though?... real morale-booster, or the opposite?

It is possible to be both. Not likely...but possible.

But, to answer your under riding question...I don't know....yet. Don't know as I've ever heard of him, before now.

Gates is from the old Jim Baker/Brent Scowcroft/Colin Powell team, and is a good choice, if for no other reason, that he will be a balance to Cheney (who evidently opposed the choice) in influencing the future direction in Iraq.

Politically, it might've helped the Republicans more if Bush had booted Rummy a couple of months ago.

He is a member of Baker's Iraq Group and this must have been in the works for awhile. It looks like a very positive move to me.

It's a strong move to moderate the party. They waited til after the election for this because had Repubs held then Rumsfeld would've stayed. But America has spoken and the RNC is listening (at least this far). The Repubs are going to do all they can to move center and drop the term neo-con from the American vocabulary in the next 2 years. They have their eyes on the prize and are finally ready to play ball.

its undoubtedly been in the works for a while, and the timing is anything but coincidence. if rumsfield resigned in october would it have made a difference yesterday?

I am tentatively agreeing with you here. I think he is a reasonable and well-qualified candidate, but the real test will be his ability to wield influence while embarking upon the rough waters that will be the Pentagon and the Bush Administration in a suddenly much bluer Washington, DC. I am indulging in high hopes, though. That's just my way. :)

I'm hoping that after the horror and heartbreak of the last three years, we will start salvaging some success from our spectacular failure thus far in Iraq.

Proves Republicans can take defeat like a "man". Most Democrats ran on a platform of a new direction in Iraq, and before the elections are certified, Rumsfeld recognizes what the vote means.

What is the new direction in Iraq going to be?

Sorry, but I really have to laugh at the "Repubs can take defeat like a man", not that its relevant.

Whats the new direction? Foreign policy and the war policy are sitll ultimately the Presidents decision.

I think the next step for the Dems will be to see the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (Baker/Hamilton Commission) which may include redeployment options, trifiurcation of Iraq, and who knows what else.

The important thing is that a serious discussion of the ISG recommendations by both sides will hopefully result in something other than Cheney's "full speed ahead" approach.

Winning seems to be a good direction to go in, unlike the losing direction things have been going in wouldn't you say?

A note of optimism: I'm proud of the administration for having the courage to interpret the elections and respond in this way. It wasn't the only step they could have taken. Credit where credit is due; it proves that our system of representation is not entirely broken.

In the coming months, there is going to be a vigorous debate over how best to proceed in Iraq, now that the taboo of 'stay the course' has been broken. I look forward to having it here with all of you.

I think the more serious question we should be asking is who is going to be the new president at my college?

What's mssing now....in that area of the world? The US took out the authority figure that evolved in that environment....an artificially created, sunni dominated monarchy that morphed over time, into a paranoid repressive, burtal dictatorship. Through it all.....nearly 80 years...the British "set up" did what it was designed to do...."solve" the problem of the Kurd/Turkish conflict in the north, by avoiding creation of a seperate Kurdish state on Turkey's southern border.....
.....the useful purpose of the sunnis was to dominate and repress both the kurds and the shiites. The sunnis preoccupied Iran....with the vaccum that removal of the sunni domination, Iran and sympathethic southern Iraqi shiites are free to focus on other enemies....Israel....and the western culture.

One alternative is to destroy the military capability of Iran, before withdrawing from Iraq. This still leaves an unrestrained, pan shiite presence in Iraq and Iran, and the sunni resistance.

Like it, or not....the best solution to avoid conflict with Turkey in the north, and strengthening Iran via it's strong Iraqi <i>shiite</i> ties...is to...in all seriousness....find a way to restore the previous sunni domination and repression of the kurds and the Iraqi shiites....and renew...Iraq's aggressive posture towards Iraq.

We broke it....we own it. The hypocrisy in all of this...and the lesson...is that the Reagan era policy of providing military and technological support to a sunni strongman in Iraq, is still the best policy. We're not going to do that now....so we are trapped there, militarily, and politcally.

Partition Iraq, and you risk a permanent, disgruntled, ambitious oilless sunni state, a kurd state at war with, or repressed by Turkey, and a stronger and more oil rich union of shiite southern Iraq, and Iran.....what then?

Just because I have information on my side I'll throw it up here for those who are interested.

This is the important part of the e-mail he sent out to us about the decision:
I think this is all pretty interesting so I might actually keep up with it for a little while.

So... cut and run?*









*(borrowed from elsewhere)

This Gates chap. He was a major player in the Iran-Contra scandal.

Marvelous.

Any foreign policy/defense expert who was in a position of authority during Reagan or Bush I terms would have had some peripheral involvement in Iran-contra or Iraqgate (which funneled arms to Saddam Hussein through a bank in Europe). There are no completely skeleton-free Repubs from this era.

But Gates is not an ideologue. Most recently he called for the US to engage in direct talks with Iran, a policy which as been anathema to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld:

regarding host's post above: there is little doubt in my mind that the explanation for the iranian political moves has been the shifts engendered by the american invasion of iraq and the collapse of the sunni domination of the space, which as host rightly points out was embodied by saddam hussein. the rhetorical offensive against israel is transparently a move to position iran as an ally in iraqi struggles against what was billed as a liberation but which is in fact an occupation. the nuclear program business is an attempt on iran's part to position itself as part of the nuclear superpower club, as if possession of nuclear power means an instant enlargement of the penis of realpolitick. and maybe it does. who knows about size and metaphors?

i have difficulty believing that even the bush administration as constituted up to this morning was as simple-minded asthe selling points it has been feeding the american people have been on this.

if anything of the above concerning iran turns out to be accurate (it seems pretty logical, but the real world is not necessarily logical) then it would be stupid--really really stupid--not to talk to iran and not to talk loudly and often about the fact of talking to iran. dickwaving in iran's direction only serves to increase iran's tactical advantage in the context of the fiasco the americans have engineered in iraq. period.

so gates' position on this particular question does not seem particularly novel or innovative, and is only reassuring because it is saner than what has preceded it.

as for what to do in iraq, i cant for the life of me see any good options.
it seems that no matter what the americans do, it will be problematic.
what concerns me really is that the solution that will appear "logical" is an increase in troop strength, using the line of increasing military presence as a way of decreasing it that worked out so well in vietnam.
i dont see immediate withdrawal happening.
i think the sanest thing would be to begin with working with iran.

some folk speculate that the scenario will be that the americans put saddam hussein back in power because they cant figure out any other option.
i wonder if even the right would swallow that one.
it seems the kind of move that would destroy the right immediately.
a suicide pill as it were.

it is a pretty grim situation.
lots and lots of people dead for nothing. less than nothing.

ya know...

it just occurred to me, if bush actually changes plans, listens to the dems, starts reaching across the aisle and actually gets things done...He may go down as 'not the worst president' in history...

i kid, i kid. But honestly, for about 70% of his press conference, i was shocked at how well he was 'changing the course' in response to the elections. I mean, sure, he was disappointed at the outcome and made a few outlandish comments, "to the terrorists in iraq, don't rejoice," as if saying a vote for the dems was a vote for the terrorists, but overall, he really did start on a path that may lead him to a much better position in history.

either that, or he'll dig deeper into the hole...i'm actually hopeful of the whole situation

I agree with you. How we deal with Iran will be pivotal to the outcome of our endeavor in the middle east being viewed as either a premature, ill-advised, destructive and largely botched undertaking that ended up turning out as positively as could be expected, and it being viewed as an utter and tragic failure that served veritably as the impetus that brought on the end of the dominance of western civilization...and I exaggerate only a little.

What makes my viewpoint on this all the more compelling (to myself, I mean) is my certainty that, Pres. Ahmadinejad's puppet presidency notwithstanding, the people of Iran would be our most influential and powerful allies in the ME if we had the balls AND the humility to engage them. It's terribly regrettable how little US citizens understand about Iran and the people who live there. And the great irony of it all is that our best chance of this one day being viewed as a success is our dealing with Iran with wisdom, diplomacy and military restraint. And as much as I disagree with the Bush Administration on their reasons for the war and the way they have waged it, I do believe they understand this. Rumsfeld's resignation today allowed me a little breath of relief. I think it's a very, very good thing for this country and the other nations affected by our decisions.

Quick thoughts:

1. Anyone but Rumsfeld, right?
2. I don't know too much about Gates, but at best, how much change can one competent human being in the Bush administration bring?
3. I know Bush is acting humble, but I think it's an act. I'll believe when I see it sustained.

I like how one sourse I read had the headline: "Rumsfeld finds his own exit strategy" :lol:

Robert Gates was confirmed by the Senate today by a vote of 95-2.

The two dissenting votes? Both Republican allies of Bush - Rick Santorum (his last vote) and Jim Bunning - who said Gates shouldnt have been so critical of of Bush's failed Iraq policy and is wrong to even consider bringing Iran into regional political/diplomatic discussions.

there was 1 part of the gates hearing that SHOCKED the hell out of me:

"Do you feel we are winning the war in iraq'

"No"

......for someone higher up to say it...

wow

ahhhh....fuck those guys :)

Sorry, it's very early...that's all the wisdom I could muster.