Rumsfeld Resigns

I am glad that dingbat is gone. One you could never get a straight answear out of him. Two how do you put a nut job like that in any political office? They made Rummy secretary of defense over Gen. Powell, how could you do that? Why would you do that? My friends were not taken care of over in Iraq, the troops had to rumage through garbage dumps to find more heavy armour for their vehicles. I firmly believe that if Powell was the Sec. of Defense. We would not have lost as many soldiers that we had. I mean come on! The first thing that the President does is get rid of ole Rummy when the Dems came back into full power? What do you think aobut that? It just shows me that we had a failed administration when this whole mess started.

Hmmm... not exactly a highly refined argument, but you do make a few decent points:

1) Insufficient armor for the troops -- Yes this was a problem, but that's a problem the entire administration and Congress should share the blame for. Let's not put it all on Rumsfeld.

2) Suspicious timing -- I agree that removing Rumsfeld right after the election has suspicious timing. But honestly, I think the administration would have been better off having him step down a few weeks before the election. That might have helped some of those who are angry at the administration to put things into better perspective.

As for the Bush administration having "failed from the start," this is ridiculous. They've certainly made some big mistakes these last six years, but they aren't inherently incompetent as you suggest. Considering that most of Congress (both Democrats and Republicans) voted to authorize the war in Iraq, I'd say that a decent number of elected officials believed that Bush and his administration knew what they were doing.

Oh my, where to start... Let's dig in:

BlackDawn/GlassHalfFullBoy writes:

>>I am glad that dingbat is gone.

I'm not sure how namecalling is a solid foundation for an argument.

>>One you could never get a straight answear out of him.

Do you have samples, because frankly, the Defense Secretary requires for them to be straightforward and "blunt" to the point of over-the-head answers which he has also been criticized for. What samples are you referring to?

>>Two how do you put a nut job like that in any political office?

Can you give a sample of why you think he's a "nut job?" It's easy to call people a "nut job" based on what you think is a negative experience that either you've heard of or have arrived at from group think, but it always helps to get perspective with samples of a person behavior.

>>They made Rummy secretary of defense over Gen. Powell, how could you do that?

Because General Powell was clearly removing himself from the process of wanting to participate in the overall plan that Bush's administration had planned? If we had more people like that on both sides, things might run smoother in general, wouldn't they? Check the timetable of comments from Powell and you'll find that he and his wife helped him extract himself from the process of being put into place in the SoD position.

>>Why would you do that?

Because he wasn't interested in pushing forward with the overall plan. You have to give Powell a lot of credit for that. Not many people can step out of position and voice their opposing view when they need to.

>>My friends were not taken care of over in Iraq, the troops had to rumage through garbage dumps to find more heavy armour for their vehicles.

Right, to combat what was an insurgency that no one, including Rumsfeld, knew was awaiting after the initial war in April. Do your friends still not have the materials they need? Why do they not have them? (Other than "Rumsfeld is a nutjob")

>>I firmly believe that if Powell was the Sec. of Defense. We would not have lost as many soldiers that we had.

To assume that the soldiers would have performed differently with a different SoD is a bit shortsighted, don't you think? Even the dems now say that regardless of who is the SoD, the soldiers on the field won't "feel it" and that's from Wesley Clark, dude.

>>I mean come on! The first thing that the President does is get rid of ole Rummy when the Dems came back into full power? What do you think aobut that?

Had he done this prior to the election, you would be saying that he did it for political gain. At least at this point he's providing perspective to many that he's willing to help in the change of decision-making by accepting one of the three resignations that Rumsfeld have provided previously. You can't have it both ways, and you need to start looking at the glass half full rather than half empty.

>>It just shows me that we had a failed administration when this whole mess started.

That means that you think that in the next two years, because the Dems have control that we'll see something better happen. We'll watch the calendar and see - from what I've seen the Dems do in just this last week, it's going to get even more ugly not only for us here in the states but "for your friends" in Iraq because of the power swing.