Why wait until after the elections? I would have thought that this move would have helped the Republicans... or did they think it would be a sign of weakness? I'm confused.
Why wait until after the elections? I would have thought that this move would have helped the Republicans... or did they think it would be a sign of weakness? I'm confused.
I think if he left before the elections (in the last 6 months or so) it would have been even worse for the republicans than it is today. Tough to claim things are going well if he bailed out.
I do find it confusing though that the article states Bush having discussed this with Gates on Sunday, while he defended Rumsfeld on Monday against the "sloppy" editorials in The Military Times Publications. I guess I'll never understand politics. Oh well...
I do find it confusing though that the article states Bush having discussed this with Gates on Sunday, while he defended Rumsfeld on Monday against the "sloppy" editorials in The Military Times Publications. I guess I'll never understand politics. Oh well...
He explained that in his news conference today -- that he "had" to answer the question about Rumsfeld staying on the way he did in order to "get past the question and move on" ... in other words that he had to lie for political gain.
I do find it confusing though that the article states Bush having discussed this with Gates on Sunday, while he defended Rumsfeld on Monday against the "sloppy" editorials in The Military Times Publications. I guess I'll never understand politics. Oh well...
Politics 101
- fire Rumsfeld during the election season, look weak
- fire Rumsfeld on Monday, look weak and trying to influence the results by tossing Rumsfeld on the fire at the last minute
- fire Rumsfeld after it is clear your party has lost one and possibly both houses of Congress? gain a bit of political capital and/or stop what would no doubt have been a non-stop outcry for his removal once your political foes grabbed the reigns
Bonus for the citizens of the US? Not a thing.
- Will it 'fix' Iraq? no
- Will it get our troops home sooner? no
- Will it heal any political rifts between the citizenry? no
This was a political move with political ramifications, that's about it. You can blame Rumsfeld for any evil you like, the fact remains that he was not the Commander in Chief and the president has not shown himself likely to change present course on Iraq or any number of other issues. Anything along those lines is still an election away.
This was a political move with political ramifications, that's about it. You can blame Rumsfeld for any evil you like, the fact remains that he was not the Commander in Chief and the president has not shown himself likely to change present course on Iraq or any number of other issues. Anything along those lines is still an election away.
I disagree. I think it's more than political. Bush depends on his advisors for his policy and his vision, and Rumsfeld was one of the chosen few. Axing him might actually help Bush to hear something different and, God willing, something that might slightly resemble reality.
Axing him might actually help Bush to hear something different and, God willing, something that might slightly resemble reality.
I think Bush hears dissenting opinions. He certainly did from Powell. I just don't think he agrees with them and is either too stubborn/smart/stupid/whatever enough to dismiss them and continue on with what he thinks is right. History will prove wether or not he was correct, but he doesn't strike me as the sort of guy that is going to suddenly change directions because a new face with new rhetoric is occupying the SecDef office.
I just wish someone would explain to me why we've had troops in Iraq this long and that country still isn't pumping a significant amount of oil. I think Bush honestly believes the whole point of being there is to better the lives of the Iraqis. To hell with that.
As a conservative, I believe the replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates is a good thing.
As a conservative, I have yet to see a counterplan offered by the opposition to change our course in Iraq. There is a lot of dissent with very little being offered in the way of alternative solutions.
As a conservative, I believe the replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates is a good thing.
As a conservative, I have yet to see a counterplan offered by the opposition to change our course in Iraq. There is a lot of dissent with very little being offered in the way of alternative solutions.
What do you mean. I have constantly heard a counter-plan from the Democrats. Usually it involves telling anti-war crowds we will bring our troops back. To moderate crowds they will stay the course until the job is done but just do it differently.
I think it's funny, the Democrats have been campaigning on an anti-war stance but now that the races are over they're already coming out and saying even with their congressional wins they are not just going to pull out, they're going to stay in until Iraq can support itself and then withdraw.
Funny, so they have the same plan as President Bush.... *lol*
As a conservative, I believe the replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates is a good thing.
As a conservative, I have yet to see a counterplan offered by the opposition to change our course in Iraq. There is a lot of dissent with very little being offered in the way of alternative solutions.
What do you mean. I have constantly heard a counter-plan from the Democrats. Usually it involves telling anti-war crowds we will bring our troops back. To moderate crowds they will stay the course until the job is done but just do it differently.
I think it's funny, the Democrats have been campaigning on an anti-war stance but now that the races are over they're already coming out and saying even with their congressional wins they are not just going to pull out, they're going to stay in until Iraq can support itself and then withdraw.
Funny, so they have the same plan as President Bush.... *lol*
Exactly.
All of the campaign rhetoric is just that. There is no plan.
Kind of a waste of time to do much planning when you have no power to do anything about it. If the Democrats had been spending their time planning a specific exit strategy, they'd just be accused of ignoring their other governance responsibilities.
As a conservative, I have yet to see a counterplan offered by the opposition to change our course in Iraq. There is a lot of dissent with very little being offered in the way of alternative solutions.
What possible plan could there be? The invasion of Iraq was an incredibly stupid thing and is now a complete disaster. There is no good plan for this situation. It's an utter horror show.
As a conservative, I have yet to see a counterplan offered by the opposition to change our course in Iraq. There is a lot of dissent with very little being offered in the way of alternative solutions.
What possible plan could there be? The invasion of Iraq was an incredibly stupid thing and is now a complete disaster. There is no good plan for this situation. It's an utter horror show.
Whether or not it's a good plan or a disaster is speculative. The suppressed voice in this problem is that of the military itself.
Whether or not it's a good plan or a disaster is speculative. The suppressed voice in this problem is that of the military itself.
Actually, all of the voices of those most directly involved, the military personnel on both (or however many) sides and the citizens in Iraq, go mostly unheard in the U.S.
