Rumsfield Resigns

[chshkt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/rumsfeld_resigns

Rumsfeld quits; Bush taps Gates for post

By ROBERT BURNS and KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writers
1 hour, 3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - After years of defending his secretary of defense, President Bush on Wednesday announced Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation within hours of the Democrats' triumph in congressional elections. Bush reached back to his father's administration to tap a former CIA director to run the Pentagon

The Iraq war was the central issue of Rumsfeld's nearly six-year tenure, and unhappiness with the war was a major element of voter dissatisfaction Tuesday ? and the main impetus for his departure. Even some GOP lawmakers became critical of the war's management, and growing numbers of politicians were urging Bush to replace Rumsfeld.


Bush said Robert Gates, 63, who has served in a variety of national security jobs under six previous presidents, would be nominated to replace Rumsfeld. Gates, currently the president of Texas A&M University, is a Bush family friend and a member of an independent group studying the way ahead in Iraq.

The White House hopes that replacing Rumsfeld with Gates can help refresh U.S. policy on the deeply unpopular war and perhaps establish a stronger rapport with the new Congress. Rumsfeld had a rocky relationship with many lawmakers.

"Secretary Rumsfeld and I agreed that sometimes it's necessary to have a fresh perspective," Bush said in the abrupt announcement during a postelection news conference.

In a later appearance at the White House with Rumsfeld and Gates at his side, Bush praised both men, thanked Rumsfeld for his service and predicted that Gates would bring fresh ideas.

"The secretary of defense must be a man of vision who can see threats still over the horizon and prepare our nation to meet them. Bob Gates is the right man to meet both of these critical challenges," Bush said.

But underscoring that he would not bow to those pushing for a quick U.S. withdrawal, Bush also said, "I'd like our troops to come home, too, but I want them to come home with victory."

In brief remarks, Rumsfeld described the Iraq conflict as a "little understood, unfamiliar war" that is "complex for people to comprehend." Upon his return to the Pentagon after appearing with Bush and Gates, Rumsfeld said it was a good time for him to leave.

"It will be a different Congress, a different environment, moving toward a presidential election and a lot of partisanship, and it struck me that this would be a good thing for everybody," Rumsfeld told reporters.

There was little outward reaction among officials at the Pentagon, beyond surprise at the abrupt announcement.

Asked whether Rumsfeld's departure signaled a new direction in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops and cost more than $300 billion, Bush said, "Well, there's certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon."

Voters appeared to be telling politicians that the sooner the war ends the better. Surveys at polling places showed that about six in 10 voters disapproved of the war and only a third believed it had improved long-term security in the United States.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Rumsfeld was not leaving immediately. Rumsfeld planned to deliver a speech on the global war on terrorism at Kansas State University on Thursday.

Just last week Bush told reporters that he expected Rumsfeld, 74, to remain until the end of the administration's term. And although Bush said Wednesday that his decision to replace Rumsfeld was not based on politics, the announcement of a Pentagon shake-up came on the heels of Tuesday's voting.

With his often-combative defense of the war in Iraq, Rumsfeld had been the administration's face of the conflict. He became more of a target ? and more politically vulnerable ? as the war grew increasingly unpopular at home amid rising violence and with no end in sight.

Gates ran the CIA under the first President Bush during the first Gulf war. He retired from government in 1993.

He joined the CIA in 1966 and is the only agency employee to rise from an entry level job to become director. A native of Kansas, he made a name for himself as an analyst specializing in the former Soviet Union and he served in the intelligence community for more than a quarter century, under six presidents.

Numerous Democrats in Congress had been calling for Rumsfeld's resignation for many months, asserting that his management of the war and of the military had been a resounding failure. Critics also accused Rumsfeld of not fully considering the advice of his generals and of refusing to consider alternative courses of action.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan and Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record) of Missouri ? the top Democrats on the Armed Services committees ? said the resignation would be a positive step only if accompanied by a change in policy.

"I think it is critical that this change be more than just a different face on the old policy," Skelton said.

Rumsfeld, 74, has served in the job longer than anyone except Robert McNamara, who became secretary of defense during the Kennedy administration and remained until 1968. Rumsfeld is the only person to have served in the job twice; his previous tour was during the Ford administration.

Rumsfeld had twice previously offered his resignation to Bush ? once during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in spring 2004 and again shortly after that. Both times the president refused to let him leave.

Gates took over the CIA as acting director in 1987, when William Casey was terminally ill with cancer. Questions were raised about Gates' knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair, and he withdrew from consideration to take over the CIA permanently. Yet he stayed on as deputy director.

Then-National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, who has been a critic of the younger Bush's policies, asked Gates to be his deputy in 1989 during the administration of Bush's father. The elder President Bush, a former CIA director himself, asked Gates to run the CIA two years later.

Gates won confirmation, but only after hearings in which he was accused by CIA officials of manipulating intelligence as a senior analyst in the 1980s.

Melvin Goodman, a former CIA division chief for Soviet affairs, testified that Gates politicized the intelligence on Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. "Gates' role in this activity was to corrupt the process and the ethics of intelligence on all of these issues," Goodman testified.

The Bush administration's use of intelligence on Iraq has been a central theme of criticism from Democrats who say the White House stretched faulty intelligence from U.S. spy agencies to justify invading Iraq in 2003.

Gates has taken a much lower profile since leaving government. He joined corporate boards and wrote a memoir, "From The Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War." It was published in 1996.

Gates is a close friend of the Bush family, and particularly the first President Bush. He became the president of Texas A&M University in August 2002. The university is home to the presidential library of the elder Bush.

[StuartD]

What?!?! I wasn't sure if I could believe the first 42 threads but this one has me convinced.

He really did quit!

[DaddyHalbucks]

We were lucky to have a fine man like Rumsfeld at the defense department helm for so long.

He is right, people don't understand the Iraq war. They don't understand the complexities of the sectarian violence and the nuances of nation building. The public has a very short attention span. The public's timetable and expectations are unrealistic. Breathing freedom into the Middle East is a long term project. It will take decades, at a minimum.

[Dick's Head]

Are you serious?

[notabook]

500 thousand threads later and this is still great news.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

We were lucky to have a fine man like Rumsfeld at the defense department helm for so long.

He is right, people don't understand the Iraq war. They don't understand the complexities of the sectarian violence and the nuances of nation building. The public has a very short attention span. The public's timetable and expectations are unrealistic. Breathing freedom into the Middle East is a long term project. It will take decades, at a minimum.

There are no words which could possibly be said in answer to the above post.

It is beyond the realms of any comprehension of daily life and could have been written by an alien on drugs.

The only person who never understood a false invasion was Rumsfeld and the current admin. 100% of the blame rests entirely with them.

[maalox]

Thank god!

[squishypimp]

about time

[madawgz]

i think this is a good thing

[Jace]

wow, you are on top of the news game huh?

you didn't notice the 20 other threads with the same title?

fucking idiot

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Good riddance to Donny...because of his lies, and ghastly policy blunders, Rumsfeld will never be able to wash the blood of thousands of American soldiers and even more innocent civilians from his hands.

Despite my happiness that Rumsfeld is leaving, I have to say that I'm not too wild about his successor, given Gates' alleged propensity to spin intelligence. That's kind of what got us into the mess in Iraq in the first place.

ADG Webmaster

[Webby]

It's clear the president has still never lost his ability to lie on a daily basis...

Only last week Bush asserted that he had discussions with Rumsfeld and confirmed that he had full confidence in Rumsfeld and that he would remain as Defense Secretary.

This week, - (today) - Bush then claims "win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee". More lying in an a pathetic attempt to save face.

Jeez... Bush probably has no clue as to whether he's lying or speaking any truth from one week to the next. It's clear he is a highly dishonorable man who could not be trusted with 5 cents - forgetting any warp or politics.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

We were lucky to have a fine man like Rumsfeld at the defense department helm for so long.

He is right, people don't understand the Iraq war. They don't understand the complexities of the sectarian violence and the nuances of nation building. The public has a very short attention span. The public's timetable and expectations are unrealistic. Breathing freedom into the Middle East is a long term project. It will take decades, at a minimum.

.. Are you for real ? or just playing a " character " ... unless you really are an IDIOT!

They knew from way before that it took more troops to invade and colonize Iraq ... since 1999 !!!! way before 9/11 that falsely justified these war crimes...

1999 war games predicted problems in Iraq


The 1999 exercise recommended a force of 400,000 troops to invade and stabilize Iraq. But at the insistence of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, ground forces in the March invasion were held to less than half that: about 130,000 U.S. combat troops and some 30,000 British troops.

[Kimo]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

We were lucky to have a fine man like Rumsfeld at the defense department helm for so long.

He is right, people don't understand the Iraq war. They don't understand the complexities of the sectarian violence and the nuances of nation building. The public has a very short attention span. The public's timetable and expectations are unrealistic. Breathing freedom into the Middle East is a long term project. It will take decades, at a minimum.

He is right, people dont understand the Iraq war, including the people in charge of it . I thought we learned this lesson in Vietnam when McNamara admitted the biggest mistake was that we did not understand the history of Vietnam.


Heres a quote from President Harry S. Truman's statement on the fundamentals of American foreign policy.

"We shall refuse to recognize any government imposed upon any nation by the force of any foreign power. In some cases it may be impossible to prevent forceful imposition of such a government. But the United States will not recognize any such government."

So, when the US decides to launch a plan of regime change in a foreign country I suppose this doesnt apply, right? And of course that is 100% ok because we do it in the name of Jesus, right?

Now what President Truman had in mind was that we would not recognize any communist governments imposed upon nations by force, but its ok for us to rebuild a country with a history and a culture we dont know the first thing about?

You dont "breathe freedom into the middle east" by putting new leaders in place as you choose. That just causes more problems, look at Iran for example.




I'll tell you why Rummy resigned. See, now that we have a Democratic majority in the house and the senate I imagine there will be all types of investigations, and whenever there is investigations where there are shady things to be uncovered there has to be a fall guy, and of course the fall guy either has to resign before the shit hits the fan, or while the shit is hitting the fan. Rummy is that fall guy!


I'll add that I'm not one of those people who think we should pull out of Iraq 100% overnight, but I am pissed that the whole thing started in the first place.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by Kimo

I'll tell you why Rummy resigned. See, now that we have a Democratic majority in the house and the senate I imagine there will be all types of investigations, and whenever there is investigations where there are shady things to be uncovered there has to be a fall guy, and of course the fall guy either has to resign before the shit hits the fan, or while the shit is hitting the fan. Rummy is that fall guy!


I'll add that I'm not one of those people who think we should pull out of Iraq 100% overnight, but I am pissed that the whole thing started in the first place.

I'll take your bet. They won't get jack shit on Rummy. There is nothing to be found on him. He is a straight shooter.

I am pissed off the war started too, but Saddam didn't give us many options. We tried to work via the UN for 11 years.

[GetBigCash]

nuances of nation building

Wasn't Iraq already a nation?

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by Webby

It's clear the president has still never lost his ability to lie on a daily basis...

Only last week Bush asserted that he had discussions with Rumsfeld and confirmed that he had full confidence in Rumsfeld and that he would remain as Defense Secretary.

This week, - (today) - Bush then claims "win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee". More lying in an a pathetic attempt to save face.

Jeez... Bush probably has no clue as to whether he's lying or speaking any truth from one week to the next. It's clear he is a highly dishonorable man who could not be trusted with 5 cents - forgetting any warp or politics.

1. We are at war. That means things are played a little closer to the vest than normal.

2. If GWB announced he was firing Rumsfeld the week before the elections, you would have bitched about that too, you would have said that the timing was to influence the election. It's a no-win situation.

3. GWB is as straight a shooter as I have seen in politics, and I follow politics closely.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by GetBigCash

Wasn't Iraq already a nation?

The question is what is the status of Iraq N O W.

It is a friggin mess. You have lots of different groups such as Shiites/ Sunnis/ Kurds/ foreigners, etc.. all fighting each other.

To get them to all come together to form a cohesive nation is no easy task.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

1. We are at war. That means things are played a little closer to the vest than normal.

2. If GWB announced he was firing Rumsfeld the week before the elections, you would have bitched about that too, you would have said that the timing was to influence the election. It's a no-win situation.

3. GWB is as straight a shooter as I have seen in politics, and I follow politics closely.

[pocketkangaroo]

I don't get this decision. I mean after the Iraqis welcomed us as liberators, embraced democracy, and the insurgents were in their last throes 3 years ago.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

The question is what is the status of Iraq N O W.

It is a friggin mess. You have lots of different groups such as Shiites/ Sunnis/ Kurds/ foreigners, etc.. all fighting each other.

To get them to all come together to form a cohesive nation is no easy task.

Kind of like what Saddam did? The guy was a ruthless dictator and a scumbag, but he kept the loons from creating complete chaos.

[GetBigCash]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

The question is what is the status of Iraq N O W.

It is a friggin mess. You have lots of different groups such as Shiites/ Sunnis/ Kurds/ foreigners, etc.. all fighting each other.

To get them to all come together to form a cohesive nation is no easy task.

Yes it is a mess now. How did that happen?
Maybe we should focus on our own country since we have many more groups here than Iraq will ever have. We can barely keep all the different groups here in the US from warring against each other.

[Kimo]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Kind of like what Saddam did? The guy was a ruthless dictator and a scumbag, but he kept the loons from creating complete chaos.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I don't get this decision. I mean after the Iraqis welcomed us as liberators, embraced democracy, and the insurgents were in their last throes 3 years ago.

Why don't you go down to Washington and consult for the Pentagon? With your 20/ 20 vision, your sheer perfection, and your crystal ball, I am sure you would go far..

[Webby]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

1. We are at war. That means things are played a little closer to the vest than normal.

2. If GWB announced he was firing Rumsfeld the week before the elections, you would have bitched about that too, you would have said that the timing was to influence the election. It's a no-win situation.

3. GWB is as straight a shooter as I have seen in politics, and I follow politics closely.

Wars have little to do with the President lying to the US people. If is was another secret, why say anything? He lied - yet again.

Of course it would be meaningful and not wise to sack the Defense Secretary a few days before an election. (And I really don't give a shit nor am I bitching).

The last thing Bush is not, is a straight shooter. The man has decieved and lied time and time again - but, of course, they are all "not lies". I wish to fuck they could at least go thru one day without lying their heads off.

The truth is very obvious - there was no intention of Rumsfeld resigning last week and Bush prob (a rarity) told the truth at that time. The lie enters into today when he then claims "win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee." My dog is more of a straight shooter than the thing in the Whitehouse.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Kind of like what Saddam did? The guy was a ruthless dictator and a scumbag, but he kept the loons from creating complete chaos.

Kinda like that.

But.. take away the uncertain threat that Saddam posed to the US with WMD, take away Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, take away Saddam's assasinatrion attempt at George HW Bush, etc..

[MaddCaz]

yezzur!!!!!

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by Webby

Wars have little to do with the President lying to the US people. If is was another secret, why say anything? He lied - yet again.

Of course it would be meaningful and not wise to sack the Defense Secretary a few days before an election. (And I really don't give a shit nor am I bitching).

The last thing Bush is not, is a straight shooter. The man has decieved and lied time and time again - but, of course, they are all "not lies". I wish to fuck they could at least go thru one day without lying their heads off.

The truth is very obvious - there was no intention of Rumsfeld resigning last week and Bush prob (a rarity) told the truth at that time. The lie enters into today when he then claims "win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee." My dog is more of a straight shooter than the thing in the Whitehouse.

By your standard, if GWB told Laura he liked her dress when he really did not, that would also make him a great liar. Give me a break.

GWB has told no material lies.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Kinda like that.

But.. take away the uncertain threat that Saddam posed to the US with WMD, take away Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, take away Saddam's assasinatrion attempt at George HW Bush, etc..

DUH?? There are no WMD and this was already known and part of the scenario of more lies. Anything else is totally irrelevant.

You get it yet?? Too many lies. Got it?

[Webby]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

By your standard, if GWB told Laura he liked her dress when he really did not, that would also make him a great liar. Give me a break.

GWB has told no material lies.

Fuck Laura's dress and fuck the liar. Wake up for Gawd's sake and get real

[spanky part 2]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Why don't you go down to Washington and consult for the Pentagon? With your 20/ 20 vision, your sheer perfection, and your crystal ball, I am sure you would go far..

Maybe a good dem. could do it. They seem to have won everything else.

I am loving watching all you conservatives saying it was more against repubs than for dems. Like a buncha kids.

Best day in 6 years!

[Kimo]

"In the Middle East we are dealing with Muslim extremists, and at home we have Christian extremists in office. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and two extremists don’t make peace." - Kimo

[DaddyHalbucks]

Saddam did have WMD.

He used chemical weapons against civilians in Halabja in 1988, and he had a major program to hide them, and on the eve of war he shipped WMD off to Syria (according to one of his generals).

Even without WMD, the bill of particulars against Saddam was massive.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Saddam did have WMD.

Been there, done that - even a troop of US folks could not find them after almost two years of searching. That story is dead.

[marketsmart]

this is good news

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by GetBigCash

Yes it is a mess now. How did that happen?
Maybe we should focus on our own country since we have many more groups here than Iraq will ever have. We can barely keep all the different groups here in the US from warring against each other.

A good part of the Iraq mess is caused by liberals in the US who prevent us from having a completely unified front against radicalism and terrorism. We may never know how much encouragement it has given to the enemy.

Should we have "focused on our own country" during WWII? Maybe we should have been more generous with Hitler, is that what you are saying? How about before/ after 9/11? We were obviously meddling that day to provoke that attack, right?

[Webby]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

A good part of the Iraq mess is caused by liberals in the US who prevent us from having a completely unified front against radicalism and terrorism. We may never know how much encouragement it has given to the enemy.

Passing the buck and trying to blame that on anyone else is fairly damned offensive - especially to the 1000's of people in Iraq who have been killed and not forgetting US troops.

It's clear you have nothing more in your braincell that a warp over US politics and don't give a flying fuck about anyone who has been affected/killed in this elected "war".

The *only* people to blame are the current US admin, who elected to present false data to the UN in an attempt to procure a resolution to invade Iraq. Can you remember the lies from that session???

[Minte]

I remember this same news when Johnson decided not to run again..It left the door wide open for Richard Nixon to *end the war*

[chshkt]

Originally Posted by Jace

wow, you are on top of the news game huh?

you didn't notice the 20 other threads with the same title?

fucking idiot

You mean the other 2 threads right?

I've searched for Rumsfield on the thread list when I was going to post it and didn't found one.

fucking idiot