Rumsfeld Goes: Live Online Initial Thoughts
I did a "Live Online" forum with readers today at 3 PM about the Rumsfeld firing and my initial impressions.
You can read the entire transcript here:
Alabama: Where does Rumsfeld's resignation leave Cheney? The two were the key architects of the Iraq policy -- does the Secretary's departure hurt the vice president in any way?
William M. Arkin: Hello all. Ding dong, the witch is dead.
Okay, serious stuff. I see this as a major rejection of Cheney. Not only because he is Mr. Stay the Course but because he is the other half of the cabal.
What is more, Gates is a Bush 1/Scowcroft guy, not a Cheney guy.
_______________________
Anonymous: Simple question. If Bush would have done this two or three weeks ago, would this have saved yesterdays "thumpin" as Bush so put. Apparently, this was in the works much more than seeing the results this morning. The election may have made them pull the trigger, but the thought appears to have been there.
William M. Arkin: I do think that doing "it" two or three weeks ago would have been to patently obvious.
Also, I'm not so sure that prior to the election, they thought that it was going to be so bad. So I believe that the President and Rumsfeld spoke yesterday.
I also know that Gates has been on the administration's radar screen for awhile. He was their original choice to be the Director of National Intelligence but turned down the administration.
_______________________
Portland, Ore.: So is Rumsfeld now the official scapegoat for the failures in Iraq?
Isn't the whole name-of-the-game for his successor to figure out how to withdraw U.S. forces as quickly as possible?
Can U.S. forces be out of Iraq before President Bush leaves office?
William M. Arkin: Rumsfeld is the scapegoat. But he is also the goat, the guy who has come to symbolize the failure. That is more important.
Though you have to agree that the announcement at 1:00 PM was brilliant PR and subject changer. Now the Democratic train has to take a little detour. And they can't just call for Rumsfeld's firing as their "solution."
My prediction: U.S. forces out of Iraq by the 2008 election. Well not exactly out, but well on their way out.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: Would we be talking about Rumsfeld's resignation today if the GOP had kept control of the House/Senate?
William M. Arkin: No.
_______________________
N.Y., N.Y.: Can this be seen as a way to protect Rumsfeld from being accused of war crimes?
William M. Arkin: Come on...
War crimes for what?
Wake up. This is our problem, not their problem anymore.
_______________________
Bangalore, India: Is Rumsfeld's resignation already the biggest concession by Bush on the war front? How pliable will Bush be to taking directions from the House/Senate if change of policy is far more than Bush is willing to digest?
William M. Arkin: Presidents don't take direction from Congress.
Clearly if the Democrats maintain party discipline, it will be a difficult two years.
But I found Bush in his press conference today to be relaxed. Clearly a great weight has been lifted from his shoulders. And now, he has the Democrats as partners in finding a solution. That changes everything.
_______________________
Los Angeles, Calif.: What is the most likely change in strategy regarding the Iraq war that we will see from the change in leadership at the Pentagon?
William M. Arkin: I'm not sure we can say that there will be a change in strategy because I'm not sure it is about strategy, or has been for some time. That is, if you mean by strategy, military strategy.
But I do think that the best military minds will have an opportunity to speak up as they haven't under Rumsfeld the control freak. Maybe someone will have a good plan. I haven't heard it yet.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: What should be the first step that the new Secretary and Congress take to figure out an exit strategy from Iraq?
William M. Arkin: They have to agree on an approach.
I would say a timetable, even a loose one, is the way to go. What happens during the drawdown then can influence the question of whether some number of U.S. forces stay as counter-terrorist fighters or as "advisers." I just don't think that the Democrats will now demand immediate withdrawal or complete withdrawal.
It will be interesting to see though as the forces are drawn down, whether it makes a difference in terms of the casualties and the level of violence. If it does, great. If not, the American people I imagine will feel cheated and a bit deceived, that is, that neither side is willing to really make a different move.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Rumsfield Resignation
This was a much needed move that needed to be done months if not years ago. However, why now? Was this decision made to:
A. Avoid the inevitable investigation and/or protest by the democrats?
B. Protect the George W. Bush legacy?
C. Appease the American voters, who are obviously dissatisfied with the war?
D. Other. Explain.
William M. Arkin: The firing was about the election, pure and simple. The American people has spoken.
But it is also a political move to force the Democrats into a partnership with the administration: Okay, we've gotten rid of the bad guy, now what do you want us to do?
_______________________
Great Falls, Va.: Sally Quinn, if I recall correctly, recently wrote in a Post Op-Ed that Rumsfeld's main value was as a scapegoat, protecting President Bush by absorbing criticism for a poorly thought out Iraq policy. Will Rumsfeld's departure open the president to more personally pointed comments?
washingtonpost,.com: Rummy's Other Role (Post, Oct. 19)
William M. Arkin: Well, it is true, particularly if you read Woodward's book, that Rumsfeld now comes in for most of the criticism. And some of the architects of the original war (e.g, Wolfowitz) have already left the sinking ship.
But at this point given that the President is a lame duck, I imagine that the Democrats will back off the partisan sniping and focus on "responsible" governance. After all, they are also after the bigger prize of 2008.
_______________________
Newport News, Va.: Do you anticipate any other big moves at the top of the Administration's heirarchy?
William M. Arkin: I think Negroponte is probably on his way out, and the number two at the State Department has to be decided. Hadley is weak but I don't see him being replaced.
The Baker Commission might also suggest some changes, which the administration will be obligated to follow.
_______________________
Maryland: For a "fresh perspective," how about reduction of some of the bureaucracy, such as taking facets of the Department of Homeland Security and disperse them to other agencies, giving the Justice Department (i.e., the FBI and others) authority, as well as the Pentagon (since U.S. Northern Command is part of the Pentagon), etc., responsibility for "homeland" security.
William M. Arkin: This will have to wait for the next administration. Iraq, for now, stops everything, including a logical war against terrorism and a proper conception of our responses to North Korea and Iran.
When it is all over, we'll have to ask whether we have the right institutions or whether we've just had unhelpful growth in the national security sector since 9/11. I think we'll decide it is the latter.
What is more, when we REALLY commit ourselves to "fighting" the war against terror with non-military instruments, maybe we'll come to grips with the fact that not only do the national security agencies suck up too much money and time, but also that they have (particularly under Rumsfeld) grabbed control of as much as they can.
_______________________
San Antonio, Tex.: "Gates is a Bush 1/Scowcroft guy, not a Cheney guy"
He is also very political and has established a record for being careful to please those immediately above him in the food chain. (I worked on and off for him at CIA after his return from the NSC.)
But a question: do you think this change might, in fact, be a sign that Bush Sr. is finally having an influence on his unfortunate son?
William M. Arkin: I think, as I said earlier, that it is a rejection of Cheney.
Careful and civil with not some pretension of changing the military and controlling the world won't be a bad thing for two years.
But having said that, our hopeless Green-zoned luggage bound military needs lots of help.
_______________________
Monroe, La.: Don't you think that the feedback from the military constituency had reached a crescendo especially after the Military Times group's editorials?
William M. Arkin: Read what I wrote on Monday about the Military Times editorials.
William M. Arkin: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/11/the_mandate_on_rumsfeld.html
_______________________
San Francisco, Calif.: How will the changes affect Iran situation? Also, will there be a more concentrated approach on Afghanistan?
William M. Arkin: The Democrats have made this argument that we need to get back
to Afghanistan.
I don't see it. What we need is to stop providing excuses and
provocations for the bad guys.
Then let's see whether there isn't positive reverberation in
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/11/a_democratic_martial_plan.html
_______________________
Silver Spring, Md.: Greetings.
It seems about five minutes elapsed between Tester Takes Montana and Rumsfeld to Resign. Do you think Rumsfeld planned this in advance or is it a a case of walking before he is made to run?
Second question, if you have time: How would you weigh Gates' chances for a smooth appointment process?
Thank you.
William M. Arkin: Some will focus on Gates' role in Iran-Contra. That's the political process. As if the President was going to nominate Cindy Sheehan to be SECDEF.
Don't think that this was "planned" in advance, but do think that the White House decided that the Secretary had to go and wanted to get through the election before conceding.
Having said that, the thumping just punctuated their view.
_______________________
Falls Church, Va.: The Democrats have stated that one of their key issues to push through the new Congress is to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations (which apparently, according to the president, makes them soft on terrorism).
With Rumsfeld gone, has the likelihood of legislation based on the commissions recommendations making it to the president's desk and being signed just increased?
William M. Arkin: Probably it has.
But Iraq is the central agenda item. It seems to me that the Dems can't focus on anything else first. They have to produce a plan and they have to convince the rest of the country that they have one.
_______________________
Wheaton, Md.: At his press conference today, Mr. Bush explicitly admitted to lying in his answer about Rumsfeld last week so that "you and Hunt and Keil" would move on to another question. Has the press become so accustomed to being lied to these days that they barely bat an eyelash? Yeesh.
William M. Arkin: How do you know when you are being lied to?
I had heard rumors for some time that Rumsfeld was an albatross, but it took an election, and even the kind of election approaching to make it clear that the American people were not onboard.
I think this is good news: The President recognizes that changes have to be made. He makes them. Would I have liked it if he had fired Rumsfeld a year ago? Sure. But I also think it is the right thing to do today.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: Put aside Iraq, and I think Rumsfeld has been a visionary on military reform issues doing what Gary Hart and other military reformers called for in the 1980's by reshaping the military. Two questions:
1. Now he's gone, does that all come to an end?
2. The Iraq war has resulted in the destruction of much of the Cold War arsenal (saving nukes, of course). So what will the legacy force of the future look like and or will the Democrats controlling Congress turn away Army requests for new weapons, and keep us at an 11-carrier Navy?
William M. Arkin: "Transformation" is two things: It is the transformation of the military into a more modular digitized force, smaller and more joint. That is happening and will continue.
It is also a cudgel used by Rumsfeld to maintain control. Anything he didn't like wasn't transformational and any he did was. Thank goodness that's over.
_______________________
Bedford, N.Y.: Will the change in DEFSEC mean that the military will be able to conduct the war with less interference and make their own decisions without fear of reprisal from the new secretary?
William M. Arkin: It will not.
The problem in Iraq is not some MacNamara controlling the war on the ground. It is Iraq. Rumsfeld did his damage three years ago, but the military has not accorded itself well either.
But, if Gates is open-minded and truly interested in military advice and input and restores dialog and openness, it can only have the impact of making our military stronger. I imagine in the end that that is why Rumsfeld had to go, not because some specific decision he made stopped the military from "doing" something.
And that includes the question of more troops. Again, that decision was made 3 years ago plus. Had the Army gotten its way, we probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, so it's moot.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Is Rumsfeld's departure good or bad for the morale of American troops?
William M. Arkin: Good, in the sense that it will improve civilian-military relations, thus strengthening the military.
_______________________
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Where does Rumfeld's departure leave the Defense Department's TRANSFORMATION plan? Will the focus now be on restoring the cuts to our conventional forces to fight the war on terror; or will Gates go forward with downsizing the force in preparation for future wars 20-30 years from now?
William M. Arkin: We have to get out of Iraq before we will answer this question. Much money will be needed just to replace and repair what has been worn into the ground in the past five years.
As for fighting the war 20-30 years from now, what an odd question. Do you imagine that there aren't wars between now and then? I do. And I also think that those wars will more have an influence over what kind of American military develops than any "plan."
_______________________
Mililani, Hawaii: Mr Arkin: Do you see the new defense secretary reaching out immediately to the the Pentagon senior leadership, especially the Army's senior officer corps in an attempt to restore lost trust and respect that was shattered during Rumsfeld's troubled tenure?
William M. Arkin: I see Gates listening a lot, and a lot to voices that feel that they have been shut out for too long.
I'm not sure though that I share you presumption that the officers' corps has some indisputable position and/or solution that just needs some airing. There is a lot of missing backbone and integrity in the officer corps. That has been the case for longer than Rumsfeld.
_______________________
Indianapolis, Ind.: Can we expect a change in Pace's position? Does Gates's history suggest respect for the opinions of military leaders?
William M. Arkin: Pace has a term to serve. The new Secretary will decide on whether he gets a second term, but I find it highly unlikely that he would be fired.
Maybe though he'll be unbound, released to speak up, if indeed as some have said and written, he has been cowed by Rumsfeld.
_______________________
Tampa, Fla.: Does Rumsfeld leaving mean his "smaller, lighter, faster" doctrine is leaving with him? How does Gates stand on this? Will the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force return?
William M. Arkin: Don't know yet what Gates thinks about the military or about military transformation.
As for the Powell doctrine, it was a slogan that is neither universal nor necessarily achievable in the real world.
What is more, we don't need overwhelming force to fight terorrism, we need finesse.
_______________________
Missoula, Mont.: Your comment about this not being about strategy is intriguing to me. What IS the Bush administration strategy at this point, and how do you think this will change with the Dems and Gates?
William M. Arkin: I don't know what the military "strategy" is, that is what I meant.
The overall strategy is Iraq is stand up/stand down. It is a crazy belief that the Iraqis will be able to become something -- a democracy, a national competent and humane fighting force -- in a short period of time. They can not and will not. It will not be pretty what will happen when we leave, but we can not stay merely because we are hoping that they will change. They won't.
And of course the other option is that we put A LOT more troops in Iraq to turn the tide. First, we won't. That isn't the electoral mandate. Second, we shouldn't. That is because the military would just screw that up as well. I hate to say it, but I believe it.
_______________________
Relaxed?: "But I found Bush in his press conference today to be relaxed.....he has the Democrats as partners"
He sure did not sound relaxed on the radio. It sounded like he was hyperventilating? Democrats as partners? Come on, it will be partisan politics as usual.
William M. Arkin: I hope you are wrong. And I suspect that you are. The Democrats need to demonstrate that they can do national security in order to win the Presidency in 2008. That is particular so if they hope to win with a woman or an African-American Freshman from Illinois.
_______________________
Munich, Germany: During the 2004 Kerry versus Bush election, many journalistic pundits felt that the Iraqis (citizens and insurgents alike) and Iraqi-based terrorists would not differentiate between a Kerry administration and a Bush administration.
Is there any indication that the civilians, insurgents and terrorists in Iraq will behave differently after Rumsfeld's departure? Was Rumsfeld a bogeyman for the Iraqis?
William M. Arkin: I don't put much hope in a change in Iraq. That is why we have to decide for ourselves to leave in the best and safest possible way.
_______________________
Philladelphia, Pa.: Won't both sides, D's and R's, embrace any seemingly reasonable Iraq plan or recommendations hatched by the Baker Commission? It seems that any plan which falls in between "stay the course" or "cut and run" provides political cover for both parties. Have you heard anything about what might come out of the Baker Commission?
William M. Arkin: There is a lot of pressure on the Commission to come up with something.
If they do, great.
But my guess is, looking at the composition, that their real role is to find some principles that the Dems and Republicans can join on. They are not military strategists (in fact, I don't believe that there is one retired General or Admiral amongst them).
_______________________
Monroe, La.: Thanks for the link on your Times article. You were on point. Two questions: Doesn't the confirmation process for Gates open the door on a review of Iraq? And do you think the Iran Contra connection will be a huge impediment?
William M. Arkin: I think Gates will have a tough time. Under normal circumstances, he would have a hard time with Iran Contra. But I'm guessing now he will be quizzed quite heavily on Iraq, and that there will be some kind of litmus test and pledge he will have to make in order to survive.
_______________________
Newark, N.J.: Speculate here, if you will: What will the Middle East make of the resignation? What about Iraq? What about Europe?
William M. Arkin: I see all of them seeing American democracy in action, something to be admired.
I see all of them also being cynical, as some of the questioners here today have been, that this is also political manipulation and ploy.
_______________________
Kansas City, Mo.: Do you really think that the lights were finally turned on in the White House today and they got a chance to look at what they had been doing the country and the world?
William M. Arkin: Don't get too overheated. The lights went on when the lights went off. But first, we need to solve Iraq and that means the Democrats need to produce something specific. Second, we need to reassess the war against terrorism and our approach. I don't know that the American people, let alone the Democratic party have strong views on the latter.
_______________________
St. Simns Island, Ga.: I believe history will be much kinder to Rumsfeld. The way I see it Rumsfeld wanted no part in nation building, and refused to increase the troop level to do it. Instead, he wanted to remove Hussein, get out of Iraq, and let the Iraqis settle their differences. Which is what is going to happen anyway. But after 3,000 plus Americans have died in a failed attempt at nation building.
William M. Arkin: Rumsfeld thought Iraq would be easier than it was, and he did not consider all of the possibilities beyond his own presumptions of Saddam's use of WMD, their focus and their achilles heel.
_______________________
Baton Rouge, La.: What does today's announcement signal for the future of SecState Rice? Isn't she considered part of the Cheney/Rumsfeld camp?
William M. Arkin: Rice is the closest to the President. But she is also weak and a non-player on the Iraq question.
Okay all. My hour is up. Thanks for participating. I've typed as fast as I can. Sorry for the dozens of questions I couldn't get to.
Please read my daily blog at:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/
Bill Arkin
By William M. Arkin |
November 8, 2006; 6:04 PM ET
Previous: The Democrats' Martial Plan |
Next: Rumsfeld's Legacy
Posted by: Former AF officer | November 10, 2006 2:29 PM
Best headline in today's Post:
"Bush Urges Bipartisanship"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Funny how his compasionate conservatism comes out when the democrats are actually going to hold power.
Second best headline:
"Bolton's nomination heads back to Senate"
Remember all the recess appointments Bush made of cronies, like Bolton at the UN, like Myers at ICE? Now he's going to try to get them confirmed before January. Not very bipartisan if you ask me. Why, what would Bush do with a competent individual in charge of an agency? How could he trust them to do what he wants, look the other way when laws are broken? Without Bolton, Myers and his other cronies he'd have to ... gulp ... trust their judgements. Oh yea, Bush should be hoping a lot for bipartisonship, but he's going to get governance from the democrats, the only party that actually believes in the function of government.
Posted by: Sully | November 9, 2006 4:43 PM
Will is perty good at not anwsering questions
Posted by: jeff | November 9, 2006 3:08 PM
As a resident of New Orleans, I have a different angle.
The US Army Corps of Engineers, the ones who built the faulty levees responsabile for the flooding of a major US City, is under the Pentagon's perview.
The inefficiency and lack of urgency of the Corps failed to protect New Orleans from a storm actually missed the city. The new Secretary MUST reform how the Army Corps does flood protection projects in this country, or millions of lives and billions of dollars are at risk.
Vincenzo Pasquantonio
Legislative Director- www.Levees.org
Posted by: Vincenzo | November 9, 2006 1:54 PM
Caller from the Bay Area says the following:
Bush and the rest of his Administration should voluntarily turn in their resignations and join Mr. Rumsfeld in retirement given their insipidity that resulted in the needless carnage and deaths in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush more than any, should have himself fired for being so callous and cavalier about death.
Mr. Rumsfeld should not be left holding the bag given the gross incompetence of the Bush Administration and America's misdirected foreign policy.
We call America the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. However, it is not very brave for one nation to cause the citizens of another nation to die in its stead, as America is currently doing in Iraq. Those who framed this strategy are cowards who were to afraid to fight their own enemies, in America!
Mr. Rumsfield's legacy will be that he was a hardheaded ideologue who stayed around for far too long (stubborn curmudgeon), and finally realized his vision of seeing behemoth America once again picking on the innocent little guy nations of the world!
Posted by: The Rev | November 9, 2006 12:26 PM
Has anyone considered that Don tried to resign twice before but Bush would not accept it at that time. This is just another play to get people to like Bush, his choices and the party. Don't be fooled. He did it for a reason other than needing change.
Posted by: Mike | November 9, 2006 11:30 AM
Has anyone considered that Don tried to resign twice before but Bush would not accept it at that time. This is just another play to get people to like Bush, his choices and the party. Don't be fooled. He did it for a reason other than needing change.
Posted by: Mike | November 9, 2006 11:28 AM
100 Million Euro Rummy.
Active in selling Saddam chemicals to make weapons of mass destruction.
Active in selling nuclear technology to North Korea.
Active in making sure his Halliburton wins billions in no bid contracts.
Now where did this patriot put his dirty fortune?
Did he invest in Research and Development in a quest for a cure for cancer?
Did he invest in new issues to provide employment?
Did he invest in municipal bonds to help build projects that benefit everyone?
No, Rummy has his dirty money in Euros counting on the devaluation of the dollar so he can reap the rewards as retirees find their purchasing power go down.
This mealy mouthed monster is no patriot. War criminal, yes, patriot no.
We need to disgorge his fortune and let him flip some burgers before he gets his invitation to the Hague.
Posted by: Beijingyank | November 9, 2006 10:38 AM
What an amazing week:Rumsfield got rid of Sadam; and Sadam got rid of Rumsfield.
lgunn
Posted by: Larry Gunn | November 9, 2006 9:44 AM
John Rose wrote:
--If the press today had been around in WW II the American public would have called for impeachment proceedings on June 7th after the caranage of D-Day was brought into their living rooms.--
Well, it was brought into their movie theaters (TVs were pretty scarce back then). And D-Day, as ugly as it was, was considered a victory by most Americans at the time. At the time people understood that with a foothold on the continent the Nazi's days were numbered.
On D-Day Americans knew what they were fighting and what the definition of victory was. Today we do not know either and Bush has had trouble himself explaining it. Are we fighting terrorists? My reading has informed me that only a small percentage of the fighting is from "terrorists", who are there only because we are there. Most fighting seems to be civil in nature, warloard battles, and basic resistance to the occupation. So who are we fighting in Iraq? Saddam? The Sunnis? The lack of a defined enemy is one problem. How about the definition of "victory"? Is an elected Iraqi government that support's Hezbollah a victory? Is a government that uses death-squads to maintain order a victory? What is victory in Bush's mind? All I have heard is "when they stand up we will stand down". That places the effort to achieve "victory" with the Iraqis. We have NO ability to work toward "victory", just to sit and wait until the Iraqi's "stand up". So while we continue to occupy, continue to toss money at Iraq and watch our soldiers die, we wait for the Iraqi government to stand up. That is not a war, that is not even an occupation, that is just plain stupid policy.
Posted by: Sully | November 9, 2006 9:14 AM
I think Rummy's "resignation" the day after elections says a lot about how the Bush administration thinks. Many have openly wondered why Bush did not do this weeks ago which might have given the republicans an answer to the "stay the course" argument that the democrats were hitting the republicans over the head with and likely cost them the House and Senate. Bush, when asked that question, said he did not want to inject this into the election.
Now, that can only mean he thought it would hurt the republicans. I have not heard anyone who thinks Rummy's resignation before the election would have hurt the republicans, quite the opposite. So why did Bush say this? I think its one of those rare glimpses into the mind of this administration, an administration that considers admitting an error to be a sign of weakness. In this mindset, Bush's vocal support of Rummy before the election was, in their minds, an election tactic to gain support from the conservative base. It shows that Bush only thinks in terms of that small percentage of neocons in this country while he ignores the vast majority of Americans.
Now, one other thing shown by his vocal support of Rummy up until election day only to fire him the next day is that Bush is a liar. Call it what you want, but Bush once again lied. In this case to the neocons in order to get them to the polls Tuesday. If Bush can so easily lie to his supporters, you can only draw one conclusion as to how easily lies roll off his tongue to the rest of America. Now that he has admitted he is an opportunistic liar, maybe the people of this country and its media will treat him as such, not trusting anything he says but only his actions.
America finally wakes up. What a long strange nightmare it has been.
Posted by: Sully | November 9, 2006 8:53 AM
Sometimes you go to war with the SECDEF you have, and not the one you wish you had.
OK, that's a cheap shot, but I have to tell you, there wasnt allot of crying around the water coolers at the Pentagon yesterday when the word broke.
Posted by: COOP | November 9, 2006 8:36 AM
I was in Iraq in 2003. I do not want to say start of the war. Mostly because this whole situation has been going on for longer than I have been alive. Everyone needs to read some history and understand that our enemies are waging this war for a far more idealistic purpose than we are. It is far more complex than our thirty second sound bite society knows or will accept. The biggest problem in Iraq is not the secretary of defense, the President, Democrats or Republicans. Nothing will change dramatically, if at all, in Iraq, as long as the politicians insist on running the war and not letting the generals and soldiers do their job. Now, a personal observation, during my time in Iraq I never once saw anything good on the news. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, all of you should be completely ashamed for only showing the carnage and destruction of war. Duh, everyone knows that war is dirty and nasty and people get hurt and killed. But, what about the good things that were going on? Schools rebuilt and infrastructure up and running for the first time in decades. What about schools and hospitals that were reopened? I am not saying that you should sugar coat the reality of war but spoon feeding the public a steady diet of only bad stuff isn't fair either. If the press today had been around in WW II the American public would have called for impeachment proceedings on June 7th after the caranage of D-Day was brought into their living rooms.
Posted by: John Rose | November 9, 2006 8:23 AM
how about honesty, integrity, action taken as a last resort when other measures fail.
Consistency is good training, BSing works wonders for people who have no character. BSing is also a wonderful way to _destroy_ character. Want to lower moral drastically, lie, cheat, steal and tell your employees that they are imagining that things are going missing, as you dock their pay to pay for your thefts.
War crimes? How about crime? Require your congress people to be clearable. Background checks, EBI w/poly. Take a bite out of crime, why have lawmakers that can't obey the law?
FOLEY? using the internet for solicitation of sex from a minor? or something close.
Hastert? Cover_up? We've gotten away with everything else, why should we worry about Foley?
Cheney, Dealaide involved in Potomoc Landing Graft/Influence Peddling? Halliburton Cheney/George H.W. Bush....why is he still getting CIA briefings? Is he really your presidente'? Is he serving 3 terms?
Posted by: what's a good military strategy? | November 9, 2006 1:12 AM
a fraud.
Get rid of him.
Regain stature by not wasting time pretending the missing person from the Village in Texas missing it's idiot isn't.
Shut up. Game over. Arrest Bush and Cheney.
.
Posted by: there is nothing to fear but pretending that the idiot in charge isn't | November 9, 2006 12:11 AM
a fearful thing if you're a thug and a bully, in other words a criminal...
I think it matters very little who control congress, if they are simply after serving their own best interests ala Duke Cunning ham or Tom Dealaid....
How many more Congress people have $90,000 in their refrigerators in Alexandria?
Want to be able to back your country up with minimal force........don't be a liar. No one expects a liar to take action or not take action, you can't trust 'em.
You want to be effective with words? Then you'd better not lie as an ordinary way of communicating. The current president has about as much chance of being believed as any other serial murderer.
War crimes?
What war? Fraud? Using the military for personal gain at the cost of 2,500 lives and thousands more wounded....
Shure, it's all legal to invade another country in order to corral a scarce resource.......if the year is 1776...
What a coward you are Arkin, that was a gutless comment.
Posted by: I think a democratically controlled congress is | November 9, 2006 12:08 AM
Within the administration, Bush primarily listens to two men, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. Cheney is the unbending ideologue and Rove the ever adapting politician. These two men have parted ways over the loss of congress due to the Iraq war. Bush wants history to reflect positively on his administration. He now realizes that following Cheney's partisan unilateralism is destroying his presidency and is now turning to Rove to salvage the last two years in office. And in doing so is willing to work with democrats to the chagrin of Cheney, the last two years will be under Roves stewardship. I never followed Bush in Texas, but from informed sources I understand he was able to work with Democrats, it was not until Cheney joined his administration that Bush choose a hard line.
Posted by: DC | November 9, 2006 12:01 AM
Bush said he talked with Gates in Texas on Sunday. That was two days BEFORE the election, so he must have been pretty sure he was going to need a Defense chief.
Posted by: Kathryn N. Koehler | November 8, 2006 11:58 PM
Not one question or comment had to do with the Iranian issue, and the new emphasis likely to emerge.
I am sorry to say this. But I believe Iran is going to interpret the change in the Administration as further proof that it can flout the world on its nuclear - program and get away with it. It is going to coast now towards nuclear weapons. The New Secretary will be engaging Iran in 'dialogue' the 'soft approach' which will mean the Administration in 2008 will be inheriting a nuclear Iran.
Posted by: Shalom Freedman | November 8, 2006 9:10 PM
Thank God
I was starting to lose hope with the United States with the Republicans in charge I believe they have had a major effect on our country and the world as a whole why do you think every country wants Nuclear weapons and are going through with there plan of obtaining them,we need to impeach Bush as well but at the same time Chaney is not the answer either,wish we had Clinton Back or myself for that matter I at least know the alphabet unlike Bush.
Posted by: Darin | November 8, 2006 8:47 PM
You KNOW that any "problems" in Iraq from this day forward are all the Democrats fault right? Rumsfeld resigning is simply the first step to placing the fault on whomever is replacing him, which the Republicans will let be a Democrat friendly person.
Posted by: Joshua, Canada | November 8, 2006 8:41 PM
Can we NOW ask for mercy for the three nuns who have spent several years in prison trying to warn us about nuclear arms and what we are in reality facing now. The Republcan regime has denied them even mercy after imprisonment by ruling that are still restricted to their districts. Can we as a Democrat majority aid them ?
Posted by: Cliff James | November 8, 2006 8:40 PM
The american people to the rescue. Thank you Jesus...
Posted by: tom barglio | November 8, 2006 8:39 PM
America has new life. The republicans were on the verge of making the usa the world's enemy. Thank goodness the american people had the good sense to put an end to this madness...
Posted by: bonnie bufu | November 8, 2006 8:36 PM
America has new life. The republicans were on the verge of making the usa the world's enemy. Thank goodness the american people had the good sense to put an end to this madness...
Posted by: bonnie bufu | November 8, 2006 8:36 PM
America has new life. The republicans were on the verge of making the usa the world's enemy. Thank goodness the american people had the good sense to put an end to this madness...
Posted by: poorman | November 8, 2006 8:35 PM
Why is a Dem controlled Congress such a fearful thing? Wake up and look what the GOP has done. It's not as if Bush and his ilk have one or two wrong opinions about the world/U.S.; they have MANY. What happened to smaller government? Why is corruption so rampant? Why do red state folks defend awful lawmakers? When will we stop considering ourselves Dem or Rep and just vote for the candidate who most closely resembles our ideas and values? Old fat rich white men do not make up the country and they don't care about you. Why are the streets in such disrepair while spending hits an all time high? Why are classrooms overfilled? Why do students leave college with huge debt? Why is Bush allowed to mangle the Constitution? Why haven't you written a letter or called someone in government?
Posted by: stefano | November 8, 2006 8:14 PM
Mr. Gates has a legacy that includes Iran-Contra. Did the election of Daniel Ortega as the new President of Nicaragua have some influence on the decision to nominate Gates?
Also, I imagine Pres. Bush Sr. is less reticent with his son given the colossal defeat at the polls yesterday. I'd guess Bush Sr. is advising his son to address the red tide of leftist US antagonists much closer to home.
What do you think?
Posted by: D Almquist - Seattle | November 8, 2006 8:10 PM
Repeal the Patriot Act!
Posted by: tazmodious | November 8, 2006 8:04 PM
It's amazing that our modern government can act the way it does. Create a war with Iraq, and decimate our economy. We deserve better.
I hope that the new Congress gives us something better for the next two years left of Bush's hot-dogging presidency.
Posted by: Richard Speel | November 8, 2006 8:01 PM
It is about time that the gang of Bush, Chainey & Rumsfield get impeached and serve jail time for the war crimes and subversion of US Constittion. The damage they have done to Iraqi and to the reputation of the USA is tragic.
Posted by: jordan powell | November 8, 2006 7:51 PM
Re the departure of Donald Rumsfeld.
I used to live in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. I have felt the evil of the war in Iraq erase the happy memories of close relationships with good people, and replace them with pain. Now I have some relief - a particularly nasty man has gone, a welcome casualty of a particularly nasty war. May the other architects of this towering disaster soon follow.
Thanks to the Washington Post for excellent coverage and a fine website.
+ Michael Hardie +
Posted by: Michael Hardie / Vietnam | November 8, 2006 7:49 PM
One down, Bush and Chaney to go!!
Posted by: Larry Noyes | November 8, 2006 7:42 PM
It's about time that Rumsfeld goes. Thank God Dem got control of the House back.
The whole world would like to see the end of the Bush Administration.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 8, 2006 7:40 PM
Yes, it was stupid not to have fired Rumsfeld prior to the election but it was also very fortunate for America and the world. If his firing meant a win for Bush, it would have been a loss for mankind.
Posted by: Robert Carey | November 8, 2006 7:35 PM
A little late. Too bad the Bush Administration didn't think of this brilliant idea earlier maybe we wouldn't be saying "House Speaker Pelosi". If that phrase doesn't wake you up to the mess we are in for, I don't think anything will.
Posted by: Mark G, Iowa | November 8, 2006 7:32 PM
One Less War Criminal Running Amok
Posted by: Steven | November 8, 2006 7:30 PM
test
Posted by: test | November 8, 2006 7:28 PM
We can clearly see a domino effect here. First, it was Powell's "resignation", he was obviously a key figure into pre-Iraq invasion, and as soon as they didn't find any WMDs, he was gone. Now, Ronny. He was behind the Iraq-Osama story, which was so badly invented that someone had to take the blame. But lets face it, the President has no say in anything, right. Who is the real person to blame here? No one but the Bush himself. Congress will not cut funding to the troops so lets see how they are going to bring the rest of the heros back alive.
Posted by: Montrealer, Canada | November 8, 2006 7:24 PM
Cheney can't resign as long as the Dems control the House. It would be too risky for a Democratic Speaker to be next in line for succession while the VP is vacant.
He may also be needed to break a tie in the Senate, the President Pro Temore also being the next in line of succession.
Posted by: Ed Stone | November 8, 2006 7:21 PM
How incredibly stupid and selfish of Rumsfield and Bush. If this had happened a week agon, is ti possible the frustration of Iraq would have been softened and maybe the GOP would still maintain control. Most realized long ago that Rumsfield failed to do what he was called upon to do and only a serious revolt by key officers finally opened up Bush's eyes. I am awed at the stupidity, arogance and complete selfishness of this leadership and I voted fror him twice.
Posted by: Alan Ross | November 8, 2006 7:21 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
The Air Force is currently conducting "force shaping" measures to cut its number of people back, sometimes involuntarily on the part of the person being cut. I hear the Navy is doing the same thing. This is an outgrowth of Rummy's fixation on "transformation." Do you think Gates will stop the services from cutting people out of the military as a "reduction in force" or will the proposed personnel cuts continue over the next few years?