Why Donald Rumsfeld is still employed by the federal government is way beyond me.
It's not that I believe he personally authorized the use of Western Appalachian techniques on Iraqi prisoners, but Donald is still the man on top — as it were. He is the epitome of the problematic war in Iraq and as such makes a delicious target for Bush's re-election campaign.
So why haven't the locks been changed on the Pentagon?
I've joked about an opportunity I devised for Bush to gain a better approval rating, but firing Rumsfeld is real and the impact seems broad and appealing.
For starters Bush could offer Rumsfeld's botched leadership as a turn-key reason for any and all the failures of the Iraq war. After all, it was Donald who denied the request for 250k — 400k troops made by U.S. Army Generals. They calculated it was the proper amount required to successfully occupy the large country. Rumsfeld wanted to do more with less and as a result existing troops are stretched thin, enjoy a piss poor morale and the Iraq is far from being secured.
Firing Rumsfeld would have a bigger impact on relations with the people of Iraq. I don't care if stacking naked men in a pyramid is within the Geneva Conventions of Robert Rules of Order, the perception in Iraq is that Americans are no different than Sadam Hussein. And it doesn't help that Bush's only plan of action is to hold a few court marshals. Kicking Donald's ass out the door would show Iraqis that the United States is serious about Iraq and how Iraqis (even those in prison) are treated.
A Pentagon pink slip would also be welcomed by millions of Americans (Karl, these are the people you call voters). In the last several months I've had the opportunity to speak with persons from a variety of backgrounds, demographics, and zip codes. And very few, if any, consider Rumsfeld to be doing a good — not great mind you — job. Many of these persons are tired of his old, Cold Warhawk ways. His style of leadership may have worked against the pinko commies in the 1970's but it's far from the right style for the current situation.
With the ouster of just one man Bush would gain a few months of pin-the-blame, happier vassals, and stop the bleeding of potential voters. It's seems to me to be a no-brainer, even the people from Arkansas can see this clearly. But I'm not a Republican campaign manager so maybe I've missed something .
Hell, I would have fired him a more than a year ago after seeing how boring Shock and Awe turned out to be.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
The whole situation is quite depressing, really. Australia's looking pretty attractive.
Amusing, and i definitely see your point. Personally, I've never had an opinion on rumsfeld... but you may have just changed that. Good points.
I'm glad that Canadian politics aren't quite so frightening and gruesome as American. It's too bad this had to happen but there is definitely more to the story that we are not hearing and will never hear.
This is absolutely silly. Actually a pretty wide majority of Americans believe Rumsfeld should not resign. Firing him would not do anything for the campaign.
How can the puppet fire the puppeteer?
I was under the impression it was Cheney who was calling the shots all along. Rumsfeld is merely a love interest as depicted so well on last nights SNL.
To dramatically understate the point, what has happened in Iraq is tragic, detestable, and inexcusable. However, this post is absurd. Firing Rumsfeld for campaign purposes? He should be fired because what has happened is sickening and blame must be leveraged, not for some political power-play. I've never considered myself patriotic but events like this make me embarrased to be an American.
Bush won't sack Rummy because he's "one of the boys". Their entire administration is hell bent on making sure they stay in power by any means necessary. Consider Bush's earlier comment: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, [muddled phrase]". Well, Rummy fooled him once, by saying that the war in Iraq would only need [very small value] "n" troops, and would cost $X. He fooled Bush twice by not bothering to keep tabs on a situation that was shown to him months ago.
So who is the fool?
Actually, it's pretty much a lose-lose situation for Bush. Dump Rumsfeld, and you've got to rush the vetting of a new Secretary of Defense, and that individual has to get up-to-speed really fast, and even then it's questionable how it'd play out. Can him, and it's yet another in a string of bad selections that reflects poorly on this "CEO President" (who prides himself on delegating "like a good CEO should").
<soapbox>
Apart from complete regime change (which wouldn't be a bad thing in my mind, but then again I've ruined countless shirts with my bleeding heart), I'd like to see the following:
1) Karl Rove gone...preferably prosecuted for his role in the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. It's not clear whether he had a role in the leaking of that information to Novak, but once it'd been leaked to Novak, he did repeat and confirm the information to other journalists...before the information had been declassified. Regardless of whether the information was "out there," until it was declassified, no one with security clearance should have been discussing it publicly.
2) Karen Hughes gone...for equating pro-choice activists with terrorists. If anything, the opposite is true; members of the pro-life movement &emdash; particularly the fringe elements &emdash; have used fear and intimidation tactics (and occasionally outright violence) to further their cause.
3) Paul Bremer...here's why
4) I "Scooter" Libby...this one's something of a question mark, depending on who you believe. (He's reported to have played a role in the leak to Novak, though it's unconfirmed, and may never be confirmed.)
5) Dick Cheney...assuming that Libby's involved in the whole Plame affair, it's highly unlikely that he acted without the approval of his boss...i.e. Cheney. Then there's the matter of stonewalling on the whole energy commission inquiry; as a lay person, I really don't understand why executive privelege would apply in this case, or why he'd be so resistant to releasing that information (unless it was particularly damaging or embarassing).
</soapbox>
Long live Rumsfeld! Most Americans believe Rumsfeld should stay in office, actually.. Firing him for something like this is completely irrelevant to the cause. His word was always to enforce Geneva Conventions... What a group of soldiers did to some Iraqis was of their own choosing, and complete disregard for military orders. The choices made by these soldiers do only one thing: make our country look bad. Rumsfeld, if you know, has been one of the best secretaries of defense this country ever had.
Rumsfeld should absolutely stay. The politically driven calls for his dismissal are disgraceful.
When I think about the history of Donald's services it makes me wonder how could he still have so many supporters in all the right places. But most importantly what does that say about the psychological balance of those supporters? Also, if I remember correctly Donald was Sadam’s buddy at some point in the history, so one would think Donald would have known better about how-to-go-to-war-with-Iraqi’s …
God knows intelligence is there, we have more spy’s at work then any other country in the world. But perhaps we got to get them speak English first…lol
Have you heard the man's responses to the senate questioning? I listened via NPR for about an hour during Friday's questioning. I was floored at his lack of knowledge, confidence, and forthrightness. He did absolutely NOTHING to make me feel secure and confident in his abilities. That said, perhaps he just needs to take Public Speaking 101.
Although I had many of the same concerns about a few of the senators as well. There were a few in particular whose speaking skills (or lack thereof) made me cringe.
Q & A between Senator Clinton and Rumsfeld contained elements of the debate over 'words vs. images' synchronous with what's blogged here and elsewhere -I felt tuned in with the 'collective' as I listened in my car. Rumsfeld admitted the words he'd read way earlier in a report were an accurate description of what has now surfaced in photos.
In this case a redesign of the original report with the latest photos on top could be titled 'Didn't think they'd proudly take photos, did you?'.
He'll probably step down in a few days and go relax on his ranch.
Not to condone actual torture and murder but, hey, war's a dirty business. On the ground, it's all about saving yourself and your men's lives -- while accomplishing your mission. Sometimes, in the heat of battle when you or your buddies are getting shot at it's hard to remember to be "nice."
Scott is right. Prisoners can be quite dangerous when naked, on the floor and behind bars.
War is dirty business only when you _choose_ to start playing dirty.
Michael, naked Iraqis are vicious. This one time at band camp we wanted to go streaking and asked Akmed, the exchange camper from Iraq, to go with us. He said he couldn't but we insisted.
Sure enough as soon as that dude took his last stitch of clothing off he became enraged, started foaming at the mouth and ran towards the counselors cabins.
Nine counselors and a bull-cook died that day. The killing didn't stop until some very brave state policeman managed to wrestle him to the ground and get a sock over his left foot.
That's why, to this day, the state police are equipped with a pair of socks — kept right next to the shotgun.
>Kicking Donald's ass out the door would show Iraqis that the United
>States is serious about Iraq and how Iraqis (even those in prison) are
>treated.
You seriously believe the people who hate America and all that it stands for would be happy with merely this?
IMO, the whole reason this is a big deal is that the mistreatment is being done by "infidels." Saddam this this and far more but since he was a fellow Muslim it wasn't nearly so distasteful.
Anyone who uses the figure of speech "Henny Penny -- 'The sky is falling.'" should definitely not be in charge of the military.
He's not gonna get fired. Dick Cheney wouldn't let that happen. Why are we talking about Bush? Since when was he part of the decision-making process?
hey, war's a dirty business
Gee, there's an original thought. War is heck, too. Scott, why don't we remember for a moment the purpose du jour for this war -- i.e., that we are bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. Accused but untried people being tortured and humilated in the very place that Saddam's Evil Doers did the same sort of thing. Ironic, and I mus ask: How does this help the cause of democracy?
The politically driven calls for his dismissal are disgraceful.
What a group of soldiers did to some Iraqis was of their own choosing
Pure crap. Rumsfeld accepted blame because this happened under his watch. He also didn't spend one minute on the battlefield, but folks don't mind giving him credit for being "one of the best secretaries of defense this country ever had..." (sheesh) You can't have it both ways. No, he can't micromanage the situation, but the responsibility for these acts is his (and Mr. Bush's). That's the nature of leadership, folks.
My opinion is that Mr. Rumsfeld will fall on his sword for President Doofus. Which would be just like a CEO. Shit rolls downhill, not uphill. That's democracy in action.
Translating what future employment of Donald will mean to Iraqi’s is absolutely preposterous. We have a much bigger picture to worry about (Global Alliance) meaning economy and the national/global American Giant Businesses. Think of all the cheap labors we have utilized for years. Now, if world is looking at our secretary and saying… Donald has lost his Big-Mac, well just thing about the global impact of it. So lets not worry about what Iraqi’s may think because chances are we may never know anyways nor will the world, at least till they can make international calls expected to arrive in Iraq by 2020. We have got to stop supporting wrong if we believe in democracy.
Heck as bad as Cuban dictator is, last I remember he has not being at war for the last 15 years… we have.
What are you saying, Beerzie. You mean someone else already said that? Shucks.
I am kind of inclined to agree about Rumsfeld and the sword, though. Gotta love our capitalism -- it's the best brand there is.
(Oh, that noise in the background is a scoffing noise that is almost -- but not quite -- a snort .)
>
Two steps forward, one step back. Welcome to life.
Except in this case it's more like one step forward, two steps back.
It's a shame that second step back was off a cliff...
I take offense at your statement regarding "Western Appalachian techniques." For starters those arrested are primarily from Maryland and Virginia, not Appalachia, second it is your state of CA most associated with that type of sexual behavior, although I would not make reference to such consensual behavior in the context of what happened to the Iraqi prisoners. (Incidentally, I am from CO)
I think Bush probably knew all along, and Rumsfeld is taking the fall.
Bill, I could't care less if you are offended — mostly because you're an anonymous coward (from Colorado). Now get off the Internet and eat some Grape Nuts.
Firing Rumsfeld is justified but I don't think it would help Bush's campaign.
It didn't work for Nixon anyway...
firing Rumsfeld is real and the impact seems broad and appealing.
Appealing, yes. Broad, no. There's a whole lotta folks on the right who lionize the guy.
Whatever. I just get tired of people sitting on the internet pretending to know everything about the war and what should happen. There is just too many people with opinions that don't matter much. I am not talking about this entry, just the internet on the whole issue of the war. My soon to be brother in law is heading back to Iraq this weekend. He is in the 4th marines, 1st battalion. Another words, he was the one that went in first and he had way to many close calls for my liking.
Oh, and if I were there, I would have been torturing the prisoners all the day long. These were the people that were capturing other Americans and holding them. If they knew where they were, whatever it takes.
Josh, I hope your brother-in-law pulls through on his next tour.
Now, I'm curious why you think people's (assuming they are American) opinions on this war don't matter.
Since when does opinion take a back seat in a democracy? The last time I checked every American citizen is considered part owner of the country and certainly has a say in how it conducts business.
Not anymore, Greg. Times have changed, and questioning anyone in the administration means you're obviously with the terrorists. Obviously!
I want Rummy to step down too, or be forced down frankly, if only to show that there is someone taking responsibility for this bloody, deadly, ridiculous "war." But the Bush administration also exemplifies one of the negative qualities about America: not taking responsibility and always blaming the "other guy." I wouldn't be surprised if this prisoner torture case was somehow pinned on Clinton.
That said, the latest surveys claim that 48% of Americans support Bush's actions in Iraq. Down 6%, but it's still mind-bogglingly high.
Josh, War belongs to Hero’s, and it’s a good thing you are not one going to Iraq. Don’t you think damage is done because of poor mentalities much like yours? Are you old enough to comprehend what is going on? Do you see the result and horrific revenge? If you want to be the one to bring such imbursement to our nation will you be prepared to pay the consequence? I think NOT… as long as you are behind the screen “Mr. tough guy” you risk it all but when it comes to reality even a Toy Soldiers will probably scare you… Nevertheless (My prayer and respect goes out to your Brother in-law he is the American Hero) Josh, at least try to make him proud.
Here is a learning carve for you, Once you learn the art of war, only then you will learn the respect that comes with it no matter which flag you are serving. For a civilian (John Wayne alike) “oh yea go kick ass or if I was there I would have done the same if not worst ...” but for a military man who is serving the frontline is a whole different ball game.
Remember soldiers are soldiers no matter what color the uniform, a good soldier will carry his/her commanding officer’s order, good soldier will defend his country and his home, and that is why in the Art of War all parties involved respect the fundamentals of war. (Which does not include an orgy party in the prison)
Look I know you mean well, we are all ready and whiling to defend our country. But first we need to defend the truth. After all we will have to live with ourselves….
In most interrogation cases a good meal or pack of American cigarette will go a long way, which is far cheaper then digital camera…
Good Luck and God Bless
Oh, and if I were there, I would have been torturing the prisoners all the day long. These were the people that were capturing other Americans and holding them. If they knew where they were, whatever it takes.-- Josh
I've heard many people respond similiarly the way you have and I'm dishearted by such a statement. Yes, it's a strong possibility, let alone reality, that members of the enemy are willing to do the same, with or without a reason such as the one we've given them, but isn't that how we differentiate ourselves from them? Doesn't that, ultimately, make the bad guy the bad guy?
I agree with Jennie.
I'm sorry but when our trooops begin to ignore the rules of conflict they effectively become worse than the terrorists whom they are supposedly attempting to defeat.
Geneva Convention or no, we should be the harbingers or moralistic ideal in Iraq, not a carbon copy of that which we seek to destroy.
Maybe this should have been deemed a true "Crusade." At least then there would be a deeply rooted code of ethics to which the agents of our military are sworn by faith to. Perhaps that will be our downfall in Iraq. The militant Muslim extremists believe in what they are doing -- we don't have a clue why we are there.
Without a moralistic code of ethics our military is no better than the Christian militants that are currently waging war against the Muslims in Nigeria. Senslessly slaughtering any and everyone that doesn't believe what they do.
The whole thing reeks of the Wehrmacht to me...
A key point that I feel has been missed in the whole debate surrounding the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is the fact that these types of behavior by our military have existed in every war we have ever fought.
The difference is the advancement of technology. Now we get to see what REALLY happens in conflict.
Donald Rumsfield is a fall guy for George Bush. George Bush is allowed to rant on as much as he wants about how he wants to declare war on "country x" , but if anything goes wrong - someone else ALWAYS has to be blamed.
I personally hope George Bush is voted out. He is detested in the United Kingdom. One day I hope the EU and the UK refuse to be bullied by a dictator like Bush. It would be nice to wage war on a country that think they can bully everyone else into doing what they want.
If you've ever watched bowling for columbine, then you'll know that The US government has done absolutely fuck all for the rest of this world.
Taking out government leaders in other countries, and instead replacing them with dictators? Killing thousands upon thousands of other countries civilians and then whining when a few hundred of their own civilians die? Who the hell gives the US the right to stick their noses in everyone elses business anyways?
The only reason they don't have the balls to invade north korea, is because north koreas army is far larger and better trained.
I still can't believe that George Bush when asked if he had set rules after not going with the geneva convention in Iraq said: We haven't got round to it. Well that's nice for you George, you haven't got round to making policies that should have been there before you even considered finishing your daddy's war.
I am suprised at the amount of racism these kinds of topics bring.
America has no reason to be in Iraq, they change their reason for being there every single damn month.
Anyone who condones the rape and torture or Iraqi or any other countries civilians will hopefully get their comeuppance.
Please keep in mind: I have nothing against the civilians of any country (including americans), it's the government behind them that I hate.
The UK and the US's friendship is becoming very very icy indeed.
Oh, and before you mention anything about english soldiers :P I'm Irish.
This is the first political rant i've responded to in a long time, I asbolutely hate them. I only responded because I read the racism contained in Josh's post.
Josh's rant is shameful and, I'm afraid, an all too common sentiment in this country. And I believe that the "whatever it takes" mentality is one that is shared by Osama and his fellow vermin. Not exactly a model example of democracy or morality.
I would say that replacing Bush would be the best alternative for the US as a whole. Both when it comes to national politics in the US and for the relations with other states. This entire debacle with the so called "war on terrorists" is nothing but a joke.
I don't call it peace and democracy in Afghanistan, neither in Iraq. If you can't finish it - don't start it. That's what I'd like to say about this to the american government and the ones pulling the strings.
To bad that americans get a bad reputation because of this, but that's inevitable.
It's not that I believe he personally authorized the use of Western Appalachian techniques on Iraqi prisoners...
What exactly do you mean by "Western Appalachian"?
I don't think that Bush has canned Rumsfeld yet simply because doing so would be to admit that things are going badly in Iraq.
Bush has made the success or failure of his campaign based on the success or failure in Iraq. Fortunately, Iraq is going pretty badly and its getting to be almost too late to change the focus of his campaign.
He's probably just praying that things will turn around soon, otherwise he'll be joining Daddy in the list of one-termers.
This whole war IS stoopid. 9/11 was used as an excuse to go back into Iraq. For what hidden purposes we the world shall not see for a long while if ever. What has been done over there by the occupying force is disguting/shamefull and should be denounced by EVERY decent self-respecting human being on this earth.
There are 3 people in this world:
Good
Bad
Ignorant
And Josh's statement is evident that IGNORANT people are a growing trend. While I do believe that Donald Rumsfeld is not a good person, relieving him of his position would do little good to repairing what is wrong with the US gov today.
I doubt it would help the presidents current election status or that the Iraqi people would give a rats ass about Rumsfeld being taught with a tap on the nose with a newspaper.
And yes, watch Bowling for Columbine.
Though it's views are very borederline bias, it does bring to light many issues that are FORGOTTEN or perhaps, people just do not care about.
Again with the 3rd category,
but then again..
Ignorance is Bliss