Donald Rumsfeld Resigning - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

mixedmedia · 11-08-2006, 10:01 AM

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

Amaras · 11-08-2006, 10:04 AM

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

Seer666 · 11-08-2006, 10:11 AM

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.

pan6467 · 11-08-2006, 10:13 AM

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

ratbastid · 11-08-2006, 10:16 AM

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.

NCB · 11-08-2006, 10:17 AM

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

mixedmedia · 11-08-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

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

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

roachboy · 11-08-2006, 10:25 AM

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?

host · 11-08-2006, 10:26 AM

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?

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=111

Quote:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation.

M.C.
The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001

Question: <b>The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"],</b> that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. <h3>But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.</h3> And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
(LAST PARAGRAPH:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/ma...erland&emc=rss )
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, <b>I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.</b> Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

<b>Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?</b>

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Quote:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990215/hiro/2
article | posted January 28, 1999 (February 15, 1999 issue)
The Cost of an Afghan 'Victory'

Dilip Hiro

page 2 of 4 | PREV 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 NEXT

As for Saudi Arabia, the remaining member of the troika, it had long been a bulwark of anti-Communism, its rulers lavish in their funding of antileftist forces around the globe--be it in Angola, Mozambique, Portugal or Italy. The fact that the population of Afghanistan was 99 percent Muslim was an additional incentive to Riyadh.

The US-Saudi-Pakistani alliance's financing, training and arming of the mujahedeen--recruited from among the 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan--was coordinated and supervised by the CIA. The day-to-day management rested with Pakistan's ISI. All donations in weapons and cash to the campaign by various sources--chiefly Washington and Riyadh--were handled by the CIA. These amounted to about $40 billion, with the bulk coming from the United States and Saudi Arabia, which contributed equally.

The volunteers underwent military training and political education. Both were imparted by the ISI. <h3>In the political classes the mujahedeen were given a strong dose of nationalism and Islam.</h3> The fact that the Soviets were foreign and atheistic made them doubly despicable. The intention was to fire up militant Muslims to fight Soviet imperialism. Armed with CIA-supplied Stinger missiles in the later stages of the jihad, the mujahedeen made a hash of Soviet helicopter gunships, a critical tool of the USSR's counterinsurgency campaign.

MuadDib · 11-08-2006, 10:34 AM

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.

pan6467 · 11-08-2006, 10:40 AM

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.

stevo · 11-08-2006, 10:54 AM

So is gates a good choice, or a crony?

Quote:

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.

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

snowy · 11-08-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

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.

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.

abaya · 11-08-2006, 11:05 AM

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?

Bill O'Rights · 11-08-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So is gates a good choice, or a crony?

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.

dc_dux · 11-08-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

So is gates a good choice, or a crony?

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.

highthief · 11-08-2006, 11:14 AM

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

Elphaba · 11-08-2006, 11:16 AM

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.

MuadDib · 11-08-2006, 11:20 AM

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.

stevo · 11-08-2006, 11:20 AM

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?

mixedmedia · 11-08-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

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.

aceventura3 · 11-08-2006, 11:35 AM

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?

dc_dux · 11-08-2006, 11:58 AM

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.

silent_jay · 11-08-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What is the new direction in Iraq going to be?

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

hiredgun · 11-08-2006, 12:00 PM

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.

Gatorade Frost · 11-08-2006, 12:03 PM

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

host · 11-08-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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?

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.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...401355_pf.html
The Woman Who Put Iraq on the Map
Gertrude Bell, Resting in Relative Peace

.....Bell sketched the boundaries of Iraq on tracing paper after careful consultation with Iraqi tribes, consideration of Britain's need for oil and her own idiosyncratic geopolitical beliefs.

"The truth is I'm becoming a Sunni myself; you know where you are with them, they are staunch and they are guided, according to their lights, by reason; whereas with the Shi'ahs, however well intentioned they may be, at any moment some ignorant fanatic of an alim may tell them that by the order of God and himself they are to think differently," she wrote home........

.....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?

Gatorade Frost · 11-08-2006, 12:26 PM

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Gates

By the time you read this, the President of the United States will have
announced that he will nominate me to be the next Secretary of
Defense. I am deeply honored, but also deeply saddened.

...

I apologize for surprising you with this momentous decision and
announcement, and for leaving as president before fulfilling my
commitment to serve Texas A&M for at least five years. I hope you will
understand the circumstances that made this necessary and that this
appointment comes nearly as much a surprise to me as to you.

I will have more to say to you before I leave (if I am confirmed by the
Senate). But I must tell you that while I chose Texas A&M over
returning to government almost two years ago, much has happened both
here and around the world since then. I love Texas A&M deeply, but I
love our country more and, like the many Aggies in uniform, I am
obligated to do my duty. And so I must go. I hope you have some idea
of how painful that is for me and how much I will miss you and this
unique American institution.

At this point, I expect to remain as President of Texas A&M until
completion of the confirmation process and a Senate vote. I assure
you, you will hear more from me before my departure.

Robert M. Gates
President
Texas A&M University

I think this is all pretty interesting so I might actually keep up with it for a little while.

Coppertop · 11-08-2006, 01:03 PM

So... cut and run?*

*(borrowed from elsewhere)

Superbelt · 11-08-2006, 01:19 PM

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

Marvelous.

dc_dux · 11-08-2006, 01:40 PM

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:

Quote:

In the summer of 2004, Gates and former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski co-chaired a task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations that argued for opening a dialogue with Iran. The task force’s report contended that the lack of American engagement with Iran had harmed American interests, and advocated direct talks with the Iranians. “Just as the United States has a constructive relationship with China (and earlier did so with the Soviet Union) while strongly opposing certain aspects of its internal and international policies, Washington should approach Iran with a readiness to explore areas of common interests while continuing to contest objectionable policy,” said the report, entitled “Iran: Time for a New Approach.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/1...ctive-on-iran/

roachboy · 11-08-2006, 02:18 PM

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.

Paq · 11-08-2006, 03:57 PM

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

mixedmedia · 11-08-2006, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

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.

guy44 · 11-08-2006, 10:08 PM

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.

Crack · 11-09-2006, 09:26 AM

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

Kali · 11-09-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

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

Marvelous.

Oh GAWD NOOOOO! We don't want anyone new joining this administration if he's not perfectly sterile!!!!

dc_dux · 12-06-2006, 08:40 PM

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.

Paq · 12-06-2006, 08:55 PM

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

mixedmedia · 12-07-2006, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

ahhhh....fuck those guys

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

11-08-2006, 10:01 AM	#1 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Donald Rumsfeld Resigning CNN has just announced that "sources say" Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down. This momentous day just keeps getting moment-ier. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

11-08-2006, 10:04 AM	#2 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	Just heard it on Air America. I'm rejoicing!!!! __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

11-08-2006, 10:11 AM	#3 (permalink)
Seer666 Oh dear God he breeded Location: Arizona	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. __________________ Bad spellers of the world untie!!! I am the one you warned me of I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

11-08-2006, 10:13 AM	#4 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Limbaugh is all verklemped..... he had to "go to commercial and will be back to address this". __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-08-2006, 10:25 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-08-2006, 10:16 AM	#5 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	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.

11-08-2006, 10:34 AM	#10 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	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. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

11-08-2006, 10:40 AM	#11 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-08-2006, 11:05 AM	#14 (permalink)
abaya Location: Iceland	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? __________________ And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran

11-08-2006, 11:14 AM	#17 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Politically, it might've helped the Republicans more if Bush had booted Rummy a couple of months ago. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

11-08-2006, 11:16 AM	#18 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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.

11-08-2006, 11:20 AM	#19 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	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. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

11-08-2006, 11:20 AM	#20 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	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? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

11-08-2006, 11:35 AM	#22 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

11-08-2006, 11:58 AM	#23 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

11-08-2006, 12:00 PM	#25 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	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.

11-08-2006, 12:03 PM	#26 (permalink)
Gatorade Frost Rookie	I think the more serious question we should be asking is who is going to be the new president at my college? __________________ I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well." Emo Philips

11-08-2006, 01:03 PM	#29 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	So... cut and run?* *(borrowed from elsewhere)

11-08-2006, 01:19 PM	#30 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	This Gates chap. He was a major player in the Iran-Contra scandal. Marvelous.

11-08-2006, 02:18 PM	#32 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-08-2006, 03:57 PM	#33 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	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 __________________ Live. Chris

11-08-2006, 10:08 PM	#35 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	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. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

11-09-2006, 09:26 AM	#36 (permalink)
Crack Misanthropic Location: Ohio! yay!	I like how one sourse I read had the headline: "Rumsfeld finds his own exit strategy" __________________ Crack, you and I are long overdue for a vicious bout of mansex. ~Halx

12-06-2006, 08:40 PM	#38 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

12-06-2006, 08:55 PM	#39 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	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 __________________ Live. Chris