Rumsfeld NOT Resigning - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ObieX · 12-04-2004, 03:46 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html

Quote:

Rumsfeld to remain in Cabinet
Kerik tapped for Homeland Security; Thompson leaving HHS
Friday, December 3, 2004 Posted: 8:38 PM EST (0138 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At the urging of President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has agreed to remain in his Cabinet post, a senior administration official said Friday.

The official said the president asked Rumsfeld, 72, to stay during a weekly meeting on Monday because the nation is at war and he is the best person for the job.

Rumsfeld has said he wants to finish his reforms at the Pentagon and continue overseeing the Iraq war and that country's hoped-for transformation.

Earlier in the day, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson resigned, becoming the eighth member of Bush's 15-member Cabinet to step down since Bush won re-election. (Full story)

Friday morning, Bush nominated Bernard Kerik to lead the Department of Homeland Security, his latest move to restock his Cabinet for the second term.

Bush called the former New York City police commissioner a "dedicated, innovative reformer who insists on getting results."

He cited Kerik's work in New York where Bush said Kerik "had great success in reducing crime in New York City."

Kerik, 49, also led the New York City Police Department through the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and their aftermath.

"His broad practical hands-on experience makes Bernie superbly qualified to lead the Department of Homeland Security," Bush said. (Profile)

"I am deeply humbled and honored for the opportunity to serve you and this great country," Kerik said in accepting the nomination. "Should I receive the consent of the Senate, I will devote every power I possess toward fulfilling the vital mission you have set before me and the Department of Homeland Security."

An administration official said New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani made personal pitches to the White House at least twice on Kerik's behalf.

A senior administration official described Kerik as a "proven crisis manager" with "credibility and firsthand understanding of the war on terror."

"The country is well aware of his courageous service in responding to the World Trade Center attack, his efforts to coordinate rescue and recovery work at Ground Zero," the senior administration official said.

Kerik would succeed Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, 59, who announced his resignation Tuesday. (Full story)

New York's two senators, both Democrats, expressed support for Kerik.

"If ever a state deserves to have a citizen appointed to [head the Department of] Homeland Security, it is New York," said Sen. Charles Schumer.

"Bernard Kerik knows firsthand the challenges and needs of New York and other high-threat areas," Sen. Hillary Clinton said in a statement. "As a member of the president's Cabinet, he can make that case every single day."

New York officials have long complained that they receive an inadequate share of federal Homeland Security money, given the fact that the nation's largest city faces a heightened threat from terrorists.

Other resignations
Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Education Secretary Rod Paige, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, have also announced they're leaving.

And this week, John Danforth, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, announced he will leave his post in January after less than seven months on the job. (Full story)

So far, Bush has tapped five replacements. He nominated White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to succeed Ashcroft, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to take over at the State Department, domestic policy adviser Margaret Spellings to replace Paige and Carlos Gutierrez to be the next commerce secretary.

On Thursday, Bush nominated Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns to be the new secretary of agriculture. (Full story)

All of the Cabinet nominees must be confirmed by the Senate.

CNN's Elaine Quijano and Jeanne Meserve contributed to this report

EDIT: LOL I made a stupid mistake OMG

I cant believe I did that.

powerclown · 12-04-2004, 08:17 AM

What I don't like about Rumsfeld is his philosophy of going to war on the cheap, and with the minimum of troops. This has proven to be one of the most problematic aspects of the entire Iraq War. I like how he has redistributed worldwide US military forces to better address the post-cold war security issues of the day. He seems to be a realistic and practical thinker, he has an enormous amount of experience, and I think he's the right man for the job.

Seaver · 12-04-2004, 09:03 AM

I agree clown. But you do have to look at it from his point of view. Afghanistan was to him the guntlet that proved that more can be done with less troops, cause you have to admit, that was amazing what we pulled off considering they developed their tactics against the largest military in the world (USSR).

I do agree that Iraq was a mistake with going in with such few people, but with more troops arriving than leaving it's clear he's realized the mistake and is trying to fix it.

Ustwo · 12-04-2004, 09:26 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At the urging of President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has agreed to remain in his Cabinet post, a senior administration official said Friday.

ObieX · 12-04-2004, 10:51 AM

Iraq was a strange case. On one had they either had too many troops or moved too fast, since the Iraqi army just kinda.. well.. just stopped fighting, allowing us to roll right in. But then, after, we found we ended up just how they wanted us, with not enough troops when everything went underground. At which point our troops had been spread way too thinly all around the country, with easily disruptable supply lines largely due to not enough troops (among other issues, like not only having few troops, but having those troops unprepared for combat i.e. Not enough body armor / vehicle armor). They knew they stood no real chance with a conventional war, we would have kicked their asses royally. This should have been expected. And HIGHLY expected. In this region, especially, it is to be expected that the fight would turn into a very deadly and messy urban guerilla war. All of this combined with politics jerking our troops around in the field (like in Falluja) made for an aweful predicament.

powerclown · 12-04-2004, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I agree clown. But you do have to look at it from his point of view. Afghanistan was to him the guntlet that proved that more can be done with less troops, cause you have to admit, that was amazing what we pulled off considering they developed their tactics against the largest military in the world (USSR).

I do agree that Iraq was a mistake with going in with such few people, but with more troops arriving than leaving it's clear he's realized the mistake and is trying to fix it.

Agreed. Afghanistan did confirm the viability of a smaller, more mobile force. Iraq was obviously a different story. You live and learn...history has noted the mistake for all to learn from.

Rekna · 12-04-2004, 11:16 AM

Wasn't it Rumsfield that lost an election to a dead guy?

Bodyhammer86 · 12-04-2004, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Wasn't it Rumsfield that lost an election to a dead guy?

Actually, that was Ashcroft, but that's for a different thread.

ObieX · 12-04-2004, 11:27 AM

Dang, dumb mistake by me, no one pointed it out, im suprised. Will have to come back to it later.

ObieX · 12-04-2004, 11:40 AM

Ahh I see now why I was confused. There was lots of talk about Rice wanting to replace Rumsfeld, and lots of talk about her possibly replacing Rumsfeld, and I totally forgot she was going to replace Powell instead.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-04-2004, 11:42 AM

Rumsfield and Cheney are the guys that divised the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs), the concept that war should be fast and limited. That was the case with the initial Iraqi invasion, the occupation isn't really related.

At any rate they are smart guys, I like having them on my team.

ObieX · 12-04-2004, 11:47 AM

The invasion and occupation sort of go hand in hand though. How you handle the first directly effects the other. If we were doing something like sending in a peace-keeping force, or a surgical strike i can see a small, fast moving force as a good idea. But not when you're invading a country, and certainly not when you're occupying a country (or planning to occupy after an invasion), especially a country in the middle east.

guy44 · 12-04-2004, 03:24 PM

I think Rumsfeld knows exactly how to invade a country: take by far the worlds biggest, most advanced, and most powerful military, use amazingly expensive gadgets to provide fantastic information, and then send in limited numbers of well-trained units to conquer a vastly inferior army.

That wasn't the problem, really. Our invasion of Iraq (and Aghanistan, although there are issues there) were fantastic.

But an invasion force is NOT an occupying force. I think both Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that no Bushie has any fucking clue how to occupy a country or run peacekeeping operations. They just know how to invade.

Which makes them completely fucking useless once the invasion is over and as bad for this country (and its troops) as any terrorist, even if their intent was good.

stevo · 12-04-2004, 04:07 PM

Occupation is the (or should be) responsibility of the state department. I think rummy did a great job in Aghanistan and Iraq, I just think Powell should have had a more active role in the occupation. I can understand why he didn't though, what with the insurgents and terrorist still fighting us, thats a job for the military, not diplomats. I'm sure we'll see a shift after the elections in january to a more active role by the state department.

guy44 · 12-05-2004, 03:13 PM

A military occupation of a recently invaded country is NOT the job of the State Department. The State Department is the diplomatic front of the U.S. government, interacting with other state leaders and diplomats. Running a military-occupied zone is most definitely not in the State Department job description.

stevo · 12-05-2004, 09:52 PM

Well, when you are fighting for 'hearts and minds' it makes more sense to have a diplomatic face than a military one. But like I said, its still a war over there and its still a military responsibility. As for Rumsfeld, I echo ustwo's feelings

sprocket · 12-05-2004, 09:59 PM

I think there are more positive responses in this thread alone regarding rumsfeld than have ever been posted on this entire board.. ever. This is TFP right? I havnt mistakenly wandered into some other forum by mistake??

Keep it up

12-04-2004, 10:51 AM	#5 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Iraq was a strange case. On one had they either had too many troops or moved too fast, since the Iraqi army just kinda.. well.. just stopped fighting, allowing us to roll right in. But then, after, we found we ended up just how they wanted us, with not enough troops when everything went underground. At which point our troops had been spread way too thinly all around the country, with easily disruptable supply lines largely due to not enough troops (among other issues, like not only having few troops, but having those troops unprepared for combat i.e. Not enough body armor / vehicle armor). They knew they stood no real chance with a conventional war, we would have kicked their asses royally. This should have been expected. And HIGHLY expected. In this region, especially, it is to be expected that the fight would turn into a very deadly and messy urban guerilla war. All of this combined with politics jerking our troops around in the field (like in Falluja) made for an aweful predicament. __________________ We Must Dissent. Last edited by ObieX; 12-04-2004 at 10:55 AM..

12-04-2004, 11:27 AM	#9 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Dang, dumb mistake by me, no one pointed it out, im suprised. Will have to come back to it later. __________________ We Must Dissent.

12-04-2004, 11:40 AM	#10 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Ahh I see now why I was confused. There was lots of talk about Rice wanting to replace Rumsfeld, and lots of talk about her possibly replacing Rumsfeld, and I totally forgot she was going to replace Powell instead. __________________ We Must Dissent.

12-04-2004, 11:42 AM	#11 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Rumsfield and Cheney are the guys that divised the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs), the concept that war should be fast and limited. That was the case with the initial Iraqi invasion, the occupation isn't really related. At any rate they are smart guys, I like having them on my team. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-04-2004, 11:47 AM	#12 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	The invasion and occupation sort of go hand in hand though. How you handle the first directly effects the other. If we were doing something like sending in a peace-keeping force, or a surgical strike i can see a small, fast moving force as a good idea. But not when you're invading a country, and certainly not when you're occupying a country (or planning to occupy after an invasion), especially a country in the middle east. __________________ We Must Dissent.

12-04-2004, 08:17 AM	#2 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	What I don't like about Rumsfeld is his philosophy of going to war on the cheap, and with the minimum of troops. This has proven to be one of the most problematic aspects of the entire Iraq War. I like how he has redistributed worldwide US military forces to better address the post-cold war security issues of the day. He seems to be a realistic and practical thinker, he has an enormous amount of experience, and I think he's the right man for the job.

12-04-2004, 09:03 AM	#3 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I agree clown. But you do have to look at it from his point of view. Afghanistan was to him the guntlet that proved that more can be done with less troops, cause you have to admit, that was amazing what we pulled off considering they developed their tactics against the largest military in the world (USSR). I do agree that Iraq was a mistake with going in with such few people, but with more troops arriving than leaving it's clear he's realized the mistake and is trying to fix it.

12-04-2004, 11:16 AM	#7 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Wasn't it Rumsfield that lost an election to a dead guy?

12-04-2004, 03:24 PM	#13 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	I think Rumsfeld knows exactly how to invade a country: take by far the worlds biggest, most advanced, and most powerful military, use amazingly expensive gadgets to provide fantastic information, and then send in limited numbers of well-trained units to conquer a vastly inferior army. That wasn't the problem, really. Our invasion of Iraq (and Aghanistan, although there are issues there) were fantastic. But an invasion force is NOT an occupying force. I think both Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that no Bushie has any fucking clue how to occupy a country or run peacekeeping operations. They just know how to invade. Which makes them completely fucking useless once the invasion is over and as bad for this country (and its troops) as any terrorist, even if their intent was good. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

12-04-2004, 04:07 PM	#14 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Occupation is the (or should be) responsibility of the state department. I think rummy did a great job in Aghanistan and Iraq, I just think Powell should have had a more active role in the occupation. I can understand why he didn't though, what with the insurgents and terrorist still fighting us, thats a job for the military, not diplomats. I'm sure we'll see a shift after the elections in january to a more active role by the state department.

12-05-2004, 03:13 PM	#15 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	A military occupation of a recently invaded country is NOT the job of the State Department. The State Department is the diplomatic front of the U.S. government, interacting with other state leaders and diplomats. Running a military-occupied zone is most definitely not in the State Department job description. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

12-05-2004, 09:52 PM	#16 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Well, when you are fighting for 'hearts and minds' it makes more sense to have a diplomatic face than a military one. But like I said, its still a war over there and its still a military responsibility. As for Rumsfeld, I echo ustwo's feelings

12-05-2004, 09:59 PM	#17 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	I think there are more positive responses in this thread alone regarding rumsfeld than have ever been posted on this entire board.. ever. This is TFP right? I havnt mistakenly wandered into some other forum by mistake?? Keep it up __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are.