Poll: Rumsfield should resign

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: ThePresence
I'm confused. Should he resign because of the abuse that took place under his chain of command, or should he resign because he didn't tell Bush?

Which ever one gets more traction....
The goal is to get rid of Rumsfeld - for what exactly is irrelevant. Too bad they'll get Wolfowitz if Rummy steps down or is fired.

CkG

I would doubt he would be confirmed at this point.

 

[burnedout]

**Breaking News - We interrupt your Rumsfeld bashing to bring you the following special report**

Seven in ten Americans said Rumsfeld should not be forced to quit

**Film at Eleven**

[You may now return to your regularly scheduled Rumsfeld bashing already in progress]

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush is the Tinfoil president. Nothing will tick to him. He can keep the worst assholes in existance on his team and it will only look like loyalty to the average man. Bush is a nice guy and I like the way he acts. And I don't like the way bad people try to hurt him.

 

[AcidicFury]

All he is is a neo-con warhawk who just continually wants to get into war. It's better for the nation if he just shipped himself to Libya or something.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: ThePresence
I'm confused. Should he resign because of the abuse that took place under his chain of command, or should he resign because he didn't tell Bush?

Both probably.

If it was serious enough for the chairman of the JCS to beg CBS to hold off on a story, it was serious enough to bring to the president to prepare/pre-empt the huge damage to the nation that was coming.

Well then, I assume that most people who believe that he should resign because a few people out of the 140,000 people in Iraq commited crimes, I'm sure they all agree that Kerry cannot be President. After all, he did admit on Meet the Press to commiting war crimes on non-combatants.

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."
"All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."

 

[chess9]

Burnedout:

Meanwhile, among Americans who are actually conscious, 9 out of 10 think he should resign.

Actually, I don't think very many Americans have really absorbed what's been happening or understand the reasons for and against his resignation.

Never forget, we here are in the vanguard, that's why we all take Prozac.

-Robert

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: ThePresence
I'm confused. Should he resign because of the abuse that took place under his chain of command, or should he resign because he didn't tell Bush?

Both probably.

If it was serious enough for the chairman of the JCS to beg CBS to hold off on a story, it was serious enough to bring to the president to prepare/pre-empt the huge damage to the nation that was coming.

Well then, I assume that most people who believe that he should resign because a few people out of the 140,000 people in Iraq commited crimes, I'm sure they all agree that Kerry cannot be President. After all, he did admit on Meet the Press to commiting war crimes on non-combatants.

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."
"All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."

NO, I don't think Kerry should be president. I don't think President Bush should be president either.

 

[chess9]

Walter Shapiro just told Chris Matthews that "it isn't a question of politics but of competence", referring to the Bush administration's free fall from grace.

Yeah, it's kind of scary, though. Just how dumb would Kerry be?

Good grief, we have all these blue bloods with Ivy League educations and they wouldn't be fit to carry Harry Truman's briefcase.

My prayer for America is that our next President is a lumberjack from North Dakota who graduated from Fargo Community College. Hopefully, he will have been the ANCHOR.

-Robert

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Originally posted by: chess9
Format C:

Oh, I agree. Bush will win by a narrow margin, but he will actually win this time. Americans will not change horses while waist deep in the Big Muddy.

So many people think Kerry is a turkey I don't expect the "anybody but Bush" crowd to raise enough votes to defeat Bush the Buzzard.

-Robert

You'd be surprised. There are a couple odd "Anybody but Bush voters " you might not expect.
One of them is my father a Vietnam Veteran, and another is my grandmother . Both of them religious church going people. Neither of these two people will talk about their political preferences unless prodded . However they have both told me "anybody but Bush". Alot of people who have not voiced their opinions will go this way believe it or not.

 

[conjur]

Christians Demand Rumsfeld's resignation, independent investigation

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There are two reasons Rumsfeld will not resign (at least not yet)

First, Bush is loyal to his staff. A good quality if not taken too far.

Second, for Bush to fire Rumsfeld could be interpreted as Bush made a mistake, and a serious one. After all Bush hired him, and no one tosses a Sec of State without good cause. Bush cannot make a mistake in judgement, just ask him. Resignation is tantamount to firing, because although you-know-who will spin it otherwise, Rummy resigns because he was told to.

Therefore, to preserve Bush's sensitive ego, Rummy stays unless it seriously threatens reelection, then Rummy's head may wind up on a stake.

 

[conjur]

What I see happening in the near future is Rumsfeld resigning, seemingly on his own. His testimony the other day served a purpose to remove any blame from Bush and put it solely on his own shoulders. He'll then take the fall and make Bush appear to have been completely out of the loop (Bush was aware of the investigation but not of the photos), to help his campaign.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: conjur
What I see happening in the near future is Rumsfeld resigning, seemingly on his own. His testimony the other day served a purpose to remove any blame from Bush and put it solely on his own shoulders. He'll then take the fall and make Bush appear to have been completely out of the loop (Bush was aware of the investigation but not of the photos), to help his campaign.

Many have predicted the fall of Rummy. They have all be wrong. It's going to have to be much worse than it is now IMO for Bush to toss him.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It seems to me that if Rumsfeld is to be removed (a topic on which I will refrain from commenting), it will be for a number of his decisions, on which I think history will look unkindly:

1. His development of the unprecedented "anticipatory self-defense" doctrine, which rationalized an offensive attack against a country that appears to have had no ability or plan to attack the US.

2. His working with the rest of the Cabinet to either affirmatively exaggerate the dangerousness of Iraq or, if you prefer (and I don't know which is true), his lack of care in evaluating the quality of the intel that led us to believe Iraq posed a threat.

3. His McNamara-esque corporate emphasis on cost-cutting, regardless of impact on the ability of the armed forces to execute the mission.

4. (related to 3) His apparent lowballing (by several magnitudes) of the real costs of a war against Iraq to help build support in Congress.

5. (related to 3 and 4) His insistence on a battle plan that involved the use of as few troops as possible in Operation Iraqi Freedom, which almost certainly contributed to the events at Abu Ghraib (since the prison was manned by young reservists with little or no training in operating a confinement facility), and which has probably contributed to the large number of US deaths in ambush attacks since the war "ended" more than a year ago.

6. (related to 3 and 4) His extensive use of civilian contractors (specifically, mercenaries like the Blackwater employees and "security consultants" like the CACI interrogators) for core military functions, evidently as a means to bring down the apparent costs of the war (since they are paid from a different pot of money), while actually costing taxpayers more (we are paying Blackwater and others $1,000 per day, per man, for duties that could presumably be performed by a SpecOps E-5) and reducing the level of accountability.

7. His discarding the principles and language of the Geneva Conventions.

8. His evident failure to take measures to stop the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere when they were brought to his attention by ICRC more than a year ago.

9. His evident failure to appreciate the critical PR impact that would result from the revelations about Abu Ghraib, and to take appropriate actions to address these issues in a candid way on the front end, rather than waiting for CBS News to bring these matters to the public's attention.

10. His evident failure to keep President Bush appraised of the breaking issues related to Abu Ghraib and provide him with the pictures, to allow the President to decide how to proceed.

 

[conjur]

You forgot these:

* Failing to heed recommendations of deploying more troops at the outset of the war (that might have avoided the insurgency and maybe even these abuses if the prisons were properly manned.)

* Failing to recognize the threat of an insurgency. Rumsfeld admitted to being "surprised" at the insurgency. Hell! *I* knew something would happen if the country wasn't properly secured with enough troops (esp. from a true international effort.)

Rumsfeld is wholly incompetent.

 

[biostud]

* Failling to set up a realistic post-war scenario.

 

[wiin]

Rumsfield wasn't the only one who didn't inform the president. Seventeen people knew about this and did nothing.
They are: Senators Jack Reed, Mark Dayton, Robert Byrd, Bill Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mark Pryor, Edward Kennedy, Benjamin Nelson, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, Paul Sarbanes, John D. Rockefeller, Governor Mark Warner and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett

Except for Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, all are DEMOCRATS.

Do I hear a call for these DEMOCRATS to resign?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: wiin
Rumsfield wasn't the only one who didn't inform the president. Seventeen people knew about this and did nothing.
They are: Senators Jack Reed, Mark Dayton, Robert Byrd, Bill Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mark Pryor, Edward Kennedy, Benjamin Nelson, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, Paul Sarbanes, John D. Rockefeller, Governor Mark Warner and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett

Except for Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, all are DEMOCRATS.

Do I hear a call for these DEMOCRATS to resign?

Did you forget about the Republicans on the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services?

John McCain (Arizona)
James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Pat Roberts (Kansas)
Wayne Allard (Colorado)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Susan M. Collins (Maine)
John Ensign (Nevada)
James M. Talent (Missouri)
Saxby Chambliss (Georgia)
Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina)
Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina)
John Cornyn (Texas)

And, John Warner (Virginia) Chairman

 

[wiin]

conjur said:

"Did you forget about the Republicans on the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services?

John McCain (Arizona)
James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Pat Roberts (Kansas)
Wayne Allard (Colorado)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Susan M. Collins (Maine)
John Ensign (Nevada)
James M. Talent (Missouri)
Saxby Chambliss (Georgia)
Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina)
Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina)
John Cornyn (Texas)

And, John Warner (Virginia) Chairman"

I don't have information on the above. You have information on the above? Show me.

The seventeen people - Senators Jack Reed, Mark Dayton, Robert Byrd, Bill Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mark Pryor, Edward Kennedy, Benjamin Nelson, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, Paul Sarbanes, John D. Rockefeller, Governor Mark Warner and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett - was informed of the situation as far back as February 26th and said nothing.

Now, six months into the election, they are disgusted and concerned?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: wiin

conjur said:

"Did you forget about the Republicans on the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services?

John McCain (Arizona)
James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Pat Roberts (Kansas)
Wayne Allard (Colorado)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Susan M. Collins (Maine)
John Ensign (Nevada)
James M. Talent (Missouri)
Saxby Chambliss (Georgia)
Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina)
Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina)
John Cornyn (Texas)

And, John Warner (Virginia) Chairman"

I don't have information on the above. You have information on the above? Show me.

The seventeen people - Senators Jack Reed, Mark Dayton, Robert Byrd, Bill Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mark Pryor, Edward Kennedy, Benjamin Nelson, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, Paul Sarbanes, John D. Rockefeller, Governor Mark Warner and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett - was informed of the situation as far back as February 26th and said nothing.

Now, six months into the election, they are disgusted and concerned?

First, learn how to quote.

Second, http://armed-services.senate.gov/

Third, learn how to count. 17?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: wiin
Rumsfield wasn't the only one who didn't inform the president. Seventeen people knew about this and did nothing.
They are: Senators Jack Reed, Mark Dayton, Robert Byrd, Bill Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mark Pryor, Edward Kennedy, Benjamin Nelson, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, Paul Sarbanes, John D. Rockefeller, Governor Mark Warner and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett

Except for Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, all are DEMOCRATS.

Do I hear a call for these DEMOCRATS to resign?

Are these the ones contacted by the whistle blower's family?(dad?)
Or was it a different soldier's family that contacted these Congress critters? It's hard to know since this part isn't getting much(if any) press.

CkG

 

[wiin]

conjur said:


"First, learn how to quote."

Is that your best?


"Second, http://armed-services.senate.gov/"

Says nothing about them being informed of the situation.

"Third, learn how to count. 17?"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/11/112439.shtml

 

[wiin]

Are these the ones contacted by the whistle blower's family?(dad?)
Or was it a different soldier's family that contacted these Congress critters? It's hard to know since this part isn't getting much(if any) press.

CkG



Text

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito
It seems to me that if Rumsfeld is to be removed (a topic on which I will refrain from commenting), it will be for a number of his decisions, on which I think history will look unkindly:

1. His development of the unprecedented "anticipatory self-defense" doctrine, which rationalized an offensive attack against a country that appears to have had no ability or plan to attack the US.

2. His working with the rest of the Cabinet to either affirmatively exaggerate the dangerousness of Iraq or, if you prefer (and I don't know which is true), his lack of care in evaluating the quality of the intel that led us to believe Iraq posed a threat.

3. His McNamara-esque corporate emphasis on cost-cutting, regardless of impact on the ability of the armed forces to execute the mission.

4. (related to 3) His apparent lowballing (by several magnitudes) of the real costs of a war against Iraq to help build support in Congress.

5. (related to 3 and 4) His insistence on a battle plan that involved the use of as few troops as possible in Operation Iraqi Freedom, which almost certainly contributed to the events at Abu Ghraib (since the prison was manned by young reservists with little or no training in operating a confinement facility), and which has probably contributed to the large number of US deaths in ambush attacks since the war "ended" more than a year ago.

6. (related to 3 and 4) His extensive use of civilian contractors (specifically, mercenaries like the Blackwater employees and "security consultants" like the CACI interrogators) for core military functions, evidently as a means to bring down the apparent costs of the war (since they are paid from a different pot of money), while actually costing taxpayers more (we are paying Blackwater and others $1,000 per day, per man, for duties that could presumably be performed by a SpecOps E-5) and reducing the level of accountability.

7. His discarding the principles and language of the Geneva Conventions.

8. His evident failure to take measures to stop the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere when they were brought to his attention by ICRC more than a year ago.

9. His evident failure to appreciate the critical PR impact that would result from the revelations about Abu Ghraib, and to take appropriate actions to address these issues in a candid way on the front end, rather than waiting for CBS News to bring these matters to the public's attention.

10. His evident failure to keep President Bush appraised of the breaking issues related to Abu Ghraib and provide him with the pictures, to allow the President to decide how to proceed.

You walk on thin ice my friend the way this admin treats subordanets who dare speak the truth. Look for you to be defending pengiuns on Anartica by June.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: wiin
conjur said:


"First, learn how to quote."

Is that your best?


"Second, http://armed-services.senate.gov/"

Says nothing about them being informed of the situation.

"Third, learn how to count. 17?"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/11/112439.shtml

Your linking skills are wanting.

Newsmax is a less credible news source than al Jazeera. The story might well be true, but it's hard to give much credence to it when it is reported in such nakedly partisan terms.

Do you have any idea how many letters congresspeople get, asking for help or notifying them of matters to be investigated? Hundreds, or even thousands, every day. Assuming that the senators have been "long aware" of the abuses because their offices were sent letters alleging the abuse two months ago is just absurd.