Rumsfeld Stepping Down

=0...Wow...That's a shocker...Man, he was a good Secretary too...I'd like to research Gates before I say anything though...
 
How President Bush is perceived has nothing to do with Rumsfeld. It has everything to do with the media and the liberal stance on the current situation in the world.

My biggest fear is that the new people in office will try to start limiting funding for the military and basically tie their hands when it comes to the ability to carry out the current plan of action and the soon to be revised plan of action.

Gates will have a two year job and will be replaced if a democrat is elected to the office in the next election. If a republican is elected to the office there is still a likelyhood that he will be shuffled out the door.

It's a new job but it starts out being a lame duck job.
 
Well I'm surprised. I'm a bit disappointed too. I would have thought that considering the President's past strong support, that Rumsfeld would have stayed for a while longer. I think it was a forgone conclusion however, that he would have been target #1 for the newly emboldened Democrats. So, maybe he saw the writing on the wall and wanted to spare the President the fight? We'll have to wait and see how Gates does, I guess.
 
I have read that the military newspapers(like Navy Times, Army Times, etc.) all have published articles asking Mr. Rumsfeld to resign on Monday
 
I can't see how any of you are suprised. I am suprised that this didn't happen months ago. Trust me... We have all been waiting for this. You say he was a good SecDef... what are you smoking? He had NO, and I repeat NO support from his senior military staff. We needed this change long ago. Thank God that it has now happened.
 
boris116 said:
I have read that the military newspapers(like Navy Times, Army Times, etc.) all have published articles asking Mr. Rumsfeld to resign on Monday
Click to expand...

Care to provide a link? If there isn't anything to back it up that is just hearsay.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't all have a story, they are all owned by the same publishers. If it makes one it makes them all, which also means that if it were printed it would available for a validating link.

On another throught I'm surprised that Gordon England was not moved up to take his position. I've met the man and he has more going for him than anyone I've ever met. Extremely intelligent as well as well spoken.
 
It should have happened 3 years ago, the man was smart I will give him that. However he had some issues like micro management, cold war thinking, and his whole it's my way or the highway attitude.
 
Senior Chief said:
Care to provide a link? If there isn't anything to back it up that is just hearsay.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't all have a story, they are all owned by the same publishers. If it makes one it makes them all, which also means that if it were printed it would available for a validating link.

On another throught I'm surprised that Gordon England was not moved up to take his position. I've met the man and he has more going for him than anyone I've ever met. Extremely intelligent as well as well spoken.
Click to expand...

Senior Chief, I have read it on CNN, but this is direct link for you:

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333376.php
 
Editorial
Time for Rumsfeld to go
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php

“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”
That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.
But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.
One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.
But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.
For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.
Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.
And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
 
Senior Chief said:
My biggest fear is that the new people in office will try to start limiting funding for the military and basically tie their hands when it comes to the ability to carry out the current plan of action and the soon to be revised plan of action.
Click to expand...

According to the next POM.. under the current folks in office... we are short about 38 BILLION in what we need .... gots to love suplimental spending....
 
I'm with Team Infidel on this one...

...from my myspace blog

"Ah, this is the best political news I have heard in a while. President Bush finally came to his senses. Personally, I never liked the guy. He just seemed too cocky, too arrogant. Rummy should have been canned when he didn't tell the Prez about Abu Ghraib until it hit the press 3 months later. Anyways, he is gone and the military will benefit from his departure. Hmmm, once I become an officer, I must refrain from comments on the President. In the military we protect a democrocy, not practice one."
 
WarMachine said:
Hurrah, down with Rumsfield! This day just keeps getting better and better.
Click to expand...

.|..

I don't think I like your attitude. Your disdain for anything not democrat is just about as disturbing as it gets.

What you have to remember is that it doesn't matter who is in that position, the military leaders function at a high level regardless of who is in that position.
 
Last month there was an op-ed piece in Time magazine that said this was going to happen. Rumsfeld has been in the game for awhile and he realised his usefullness was gone except for playing scapegoat ala Reagan-Ollie North and that he would get out before the hammer fell but that President Bush would never do it as he knew Rumsfeld was shielding himself from a lot of the criticism about the war. So now President Bush is left standing tall downrange because Cheney has carefully shielded himself and been running in stealth mode as he also knows how the game is played. Prepare to see POTUS drug through the mud by Pelosi et al as there is no cover or concealment anymore.
 
Is it just me, or is that old Vietnam War smell waffling in where the US defeats itself in an extexnal war from internal bickering, politics, and disunity of purpose?
 
Doody said:
I'm with Team Infidel on this one...

...from my myspace blog

"Ah, this is the best political news I have heard in a while. President Bush finally came to his senses. Personally, I never liked the guy. He just seemed too cocky, too arrogant. Rummy should have been canned when he didn't tell the Prez about Abu Ghraib until it hit the press 3 months later. Anyways, he is gone and the military will benefit from his departure. Hmmm, once I become an officer, I must refrain from comments on the President. In the military we protect a democrocy, not practice one."
Click to expand...

Rummy did offer his resignation twice but the Commander-in-Chief didn't have the "brains" to accept it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top