Should he stay or should he go now?

[Yerdaddy]

<p><a href="http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php" target="_blank">The Navy Times</a> joined in the three year old call for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld" target="_blank">Rummy's</a> head by traditional allies of the president:</p><p>Editorial</p><p><br /><strong>Time for Rumsfeld to go</strong></p><p><em>&ldquo;So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.&rdquo;</em></p><p>That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War. </p><p>But until recently, the &ldquo;hard bruising&rdquo; truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. </p><p>One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: &ldquo;mission accomplished,&rdquo; the insurgency is &ldquo;in its last throes,&rdquo; and &ldquo;back off,&rdquo; we know what we&rsquo;re doing, are a few choice examples.</p><p>Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war&rsquo;s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.</p><p>Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: &ldquo;I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I&rsquo;ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.&rdquo;</p><p>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 &ldquo;critical&rdquo; and has been sliding toward &ldquo;chaos&rdquo; 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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&rsquo;t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.</p><p>Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money. </p><p>And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand. </p><p>Now, the president says he&rsquo;ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House. </p><p>This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation&rsquo;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.</p><p>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.</p><p>And although that tradition, and the officers&rsquo; deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it. </p><p>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.</p><p>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: </p><p>Donald Rumsfeld must go.</p><p>Harsh. </p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006

[cupcakelove]

Bush will get zero benefit from replacing Rumsfeld, so of course he's not going to do it.&nbsp; If he did replace him, he would have to admit a lot of the mistakes that have been made, and acknowledge the incompentcy that surrounds him.&nbsp; I don't see him wanting to do that.&nbsp; Its shocking more people aren't outraged about the fact Bush would rather stick with a bad decision than admit he was wrong and fix the situation.&nbsp; His response to this criticism is proof that he doesn't want the American people thinking or debating anything, just let him make the decisions and if you disagree with him the terrorists win.<br />

[Recyclerz]

<p>What I want to happen: the entire ruling junta to fall into a bucket of AIDS (thank you for the concept, Li'l Jimmy)</p><p>What I expect/hope to happen: If the Democrats pick up control of at least one House of Congress (praying, praying) when the Baker Commission comes out with some better ideas on how to handle Iraq from here on out, I'm hoping Laura (and Condi) pull a Lysistrata on W so that he accepts Rummy's resignation and appoints somebody who thinks like Colin Powell to carry out the new plans.</p>

[Jujubees2]

<font size="2">What pisses me off more than the crappy job being done by Rummy is the President going on record saying he's doing&nbsp;a great job.&nbsp; A great job at what?</font>

[johnniewalker]

<strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br />Bush will get zero benefit from replacing Rumsfeld, so of course he's not going to do it. If he did replace him, he would have to admit a lot of the mistakes that have been made, and acknowledge the incompentcy that surrounds him. I don't see him wanting to do that. Its shocking more people aren't outraged about the fact Bush would rather stick with a bad decision than admit he was wrong and fix the situation. His response to this criticism is proof that he doesn't want the American people thinking or debating anything, just let him make the decisions and if you disagree with him the terrorists win.<br /><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Zero benefit?&nbsp; Bush has admitted to mistakes and problems in Iraq. Clearly not as forcefully and openly as people want.&nbsp; What's hard for people to understand, is the idea of Iraq as only a failure or success.&nbsp; We can say its a failure, but do we understand why its a failure.&nbsp; How do we tie the specifics to Rumsfeld?&nbsp; It's easy to gloss over the specifics and make a glib remark and get a big pop from a studio audience, but is that constructive criticisim?&nbsp;</p><p> I have a hard time even starting to think of what is the best strategy to engage in a war like this.&nbsp; Do you use personnel connected with vietnam b/c they recognize the mistakes made, or do you look for an entirely new perspective?&nbsp; There are also clear loyalty issues with Bush and Rumsfeld.&nbsp; At what point can you look a situation like a war, and say this is clearly an unresovable failure?&nbsp; I'm guessing the best place to start looking at how to collectively judge this war would be the army.&nbsp;&nbsp; If this is the feelings of the army, perhaps loyalty and support will be overlooked.&nbsp; In this Bush clearly has benefits in replacing Rumsfeld.&nbsp; Its not just someone starting from the result and going backwards towards Rumsfeld, but instead starting at the specific problems of the war and looking at strategy.&nbsp; I think this criticism has the ability to be more universally accepted rather than focusing purely on a binary idea of right or wrong.<br /></p>

[Yerdaddy]

<strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br />Bush will get zero benefit from replacing Rumsfeld, so of course he's not going to do it.&nbsp; If he did replace him, he would have to admit a lot of the mistakes that have been made, and acknowledge the incompentcy that surrounds him.&nbsp; <br /><p>You're right - he's not going to do it, but here are the benefits:</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601415_pf.html" target="_blank">Forcing Rumsfeld to retire would be a political blow for the White House, at least in the short term: It would be an admission that Bush not only miscalculated the need for a preemptive war against Saddam Hussein but also bungled the plan to pacify and democratize Iraq after the invasion. Nonetheless, history shows that such tough personnel decisions can, eventually, prove healthy for an administration and for a nation, particularly in times of war. They force reassessments of long-standing policy; they help presidents stand back, evaluate and chart new directions</a>.</p><p>Read the OP-ED for the details. It's a good piece.</p>

[johnniewalker]

<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br />Bush will get zero benefit from replacing Rumsfeld, so of course he's not going to do it. If he did replace him, he would have to admit a lot of the mistakes that have been made, and acknowledge the incompentcy that surrounds him. <br /><p>You're right - he's not going to do it, but here are the benefits:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601415_pf.html">Forcing Rumsfeld to retire would be a political blow for the White House, at least in the short term: It would be an admission that Bush not only miscalculated the need for a preemptive war against Saddam Hussein but also bungled the plan to pacify and democratize Iraq after the invasion. Nonetheless, history shows that such tough personnel decisions can, eventually, prove healthy for an administration and for a nation, particularly in times of war. They force reassessments of long-standing policy; they help presidents stand back, evaluate and chart new directions</a>.<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Read the OP-ED for the details. It's a good piece.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>He could read my op-ed. <br />

[cupcakelove]

<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br />Bush
will get zero benefit from replacing Rumsfeld, so of course he's not
going to do it. If he did replace him, he would have to admit a lot of
the mistakes that have been made, and acknowledge the incompentcy that
surrounds him. <br /><p>You're right - he's not going to do it, but here are the benefits:</p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601415_pf.html">Forcing
Rumsfeld to retire would be a political blow for the White House, at
least in the short term: It would be an admission that Bush not only
miscalculated the need for a preemptive war against Saddam Hussein but
also bungled the plan to pacify and democratize Iraq after the
invasion. Nonetheless, history shows that such tough personnel
decisions can, eventually, prove healthy for an administration and for
a nation, particularly in times of war. They force reassessments of
long-standing policy; they help presidents stand back, evaluate and
chart new directions</a>.<p>Read the OP-ED for the details. It's a good piece.</p><p>I meant that he will not personally benefit from it in any way that he actually cares about.<br /></p>

[Yerdaddy]

<strong>johnniewalker</strong> wrote:<br /><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Zero benefit?&nbsp; Bush has admitted to mistakes and problems in Iraq. Clearly not as forcefully and openly as people want.&nbsp; What's hard for people to understand, is the idea of Iraq as only a failure or success.&nbsp; We can say its a failure, but do we understand why its a failure.&nbsp; How do we tie the specifics to Rumsfeld?&nbsp; It's easy to gloss over the specifics and make a glib remark and get a big pop from a studio audience, but is that constructive criticisim?&nbsp;</p><p>Glib remarks? Short of a signed confession from Rumsfeld, is it possible to get more authoritative, specific&nbsp;criticism than what I posted in the beginning post?</p>

[A.J.]

<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br />You're right - he's not going to do it, but here are the benefits:<p>&nbsp;</p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601415_pf.html" target="_blank">Forcing Rumsfeld to retire would be a political blow for the White House, at least in the short term: It would be an admission that Bush not only miscalculated the need for a preemptive war against Saddam Hussein but also bungled the plan to pacify and democratize Iraq after the invasion. Nonetheless, history shows that such tough personnel decisions can, eventually, prove healthy for an administration and for a nation, particularly in times of war. They force reassessments of long-standing policy; they help presidents stand back, evaluate and chart new directions</a>. <p>&nbsp;</p><p>Read the OP-ED for the details. It's a good piece.</p><p>This is an interesting piece.&nbsp; And Dallek's&nbsp;suggestion of Zbigniew Brzezinski as a replacement for Rumsfeld is not a bad idea.&nbsp; He might mend fences with Democrats&nbsp;-- kind of like Clinton appointing William Cohen -- and Republicans remember him as a tough Cold Warrior.</p><p>EDIT:&nbsp; What I forgot to add here is another consideration why Bush wants Rumsfeld to stay on.&nbsp; Before, Iraq, before Afghanistan, before 9/11, Runsfeld's main job was to transform the military.&nbsp; Simply put, this means changing WHAT kind of weapons we acquire and changing HOW we acquire them.&nbsp; </p><p>The DoD bureaucracy and the military leadership were not thrilled and Bush put Rumsfeld in there knowing he had the cred, and the balls, to make them take their medicine.</p><p>The GWOT and ops in Afghanistan have sort of derailed this effort.&nbsp; You can read about <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/about_transformation.html" target="_self">DoD tranformation here</a>.</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by A.J. on 11-7-06 @ 1:32 PM</span>

[johnniewalker]

<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>johnniewalker</strong> wrote:<br /><p> </p><p>Zero benefit? Bush has admitted to mistakes and problems in Iraq. Clearly not as forcefully and openly as people want. What's hard for people to understand, is the idea of Iraq as only a failure or success. We can say its a failure, but do we understand why its a failure. How do we tie the specifics to Rumsfeld? It's easy to gloss over the specifics and make a glib remark and get a big pop from a studio audience, but is that constructive criticisim? </p><p>Glib remarks? Short of a signed confession from Rumsfeld, is it possible to get more authoritative, specific criticism than what I posted in the beginning post?</p><p>&nbsp;</p>I didn't mean you, I totally agreed with army criticism being the most best criticim to judge Rumsfelds job.&nbsp; I was taking a shot at the daily show, but I'm still working on my glib remarks.<br />

[Yerdaddy]

<strong>johnniewalker</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br />Bush will get zero benefit from replacing Rumsfeld, so of course he's not going to do it. If he did replace him, he would have to admit a lot of the mistakes that have been made, and acknowledge the incompentcy that surrounds him. <br /><p>You're right - he's not going to do it, but here are the benefits:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601415_pf.html" target="_blank">Forcing Rumsfeld to retire would be a political blow for the White House, at least in the short term: It would be an admission that Bush not only miscalculated the need for a preemptive war against Saddam Hussein but also bungled the plan to pacify and democratize Iraq after the invasion. Nonetheless, history shows that such tough personnel decisions can, eventually, prove healthy for an administration and for a nation, particularly in times of war. They force reassessments of long-standing policy; they help presidents stand back, evaluate and chart new directions</a>. <p>&nbsp;</p><p>Read the OP-ED for the details. It's a good piece.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>He could read my op-ed. <br /><p>I'm honestly trying to understand your op-ed. It sounds like the second paragraph is saying that if you can't spell out all the specific mistakes made that let to the current situation then you can't say whether Rumsfeld is to blame. But I could be wrong. In an effort to keep myself from obsessively forgoing dinner and trying to score some tourist trim and doing just that, (It's litterally giving me the shakes), answer this question: What did you vote in the poll?</p>

[johnniewalker]

<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>johnniewalker</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br />Bush will get zero benefit from replacing Rumsfeld, so of course he's not going to do it. If he did replace him, he would have to admit a lot of the mistakes that have been made, and acknowledge the incompentcy that surrounds him. <br /><p>You're right - he's not going to do it, but here are the benefits:</p><p> </p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601415_pf.html">Forcing Rumsfeld to retire would be a political blow for the White House, at least in the short term: It would be an admission that Bush not only miscalculated the need for a preemptive war against Saddam Hussein but also bungled the plan to pacify and democratize Iraq after the invasion. Nonetheless, history shows that such tough personnel decisions can, eventually, prove healthy for an administration and for a nation, particularly in times of war. They force reassessments of long-standing policy; they help presidents stand back, evaluate and chart new directions</a>. <p> </p><p>Read the OP-ED for the details. It's a good piece.</p><p> </p>He could read my op-ed. <br /><p>I'm honestly trying to understand your op-ed. It sounds like the second paragraph is saying that if you can't spell out all the specific mistakes made that let to the current situation then you can't say whether Rumsfeld is to blame. But I could be wrong. In an effort to keep myself from obsessively forgoing dinner and trying to score some tourist trim and doing just that, (It's litterally giving me the shakes), answer this question: What did you vote in the poll?</p><p>&nbsp;</p>I think fire him b/c the army criticism is the most valid criticism.<br />

[Yerdaddy]

<strong>A.J.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br />You're right - he's not going to do it, but here are the benefits:<p>&nbsp;</p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601415_pf.html" target="_blank">Forcing Rumsfeld to retire would be a political blow for the White House, at least in the short term: It would be an admission that Bush not only miscalculated the need for a preemptive war against Saddam Hussein but also bungled the plan to pacify and democratize Iraq after the invasion. Nonetheless, history shows that such tough personnel decisions can, eventually, prove healthy for an administration and for a nation, particularly in times of war. They force reassessments of long-standing policy; they help presidents stand back, evaluate and chart new directions</a>. <p>&nbsp;</p><p>Read the OP-ED for the details. It's a good piece.</p><p>This is an interesting piece.&nbsp; And Dallek's&nbsp;suggestion of Zbigniew Brzezinski as a replacement for Rumsfeld is not a bad idea.&nbsp; He might mend fences with Democrats&nbsp;-- kind of like Clinton appointing William Cohen -- and Republicans remember him as a tough Cold Warrior.</p><p>I was into the piece too, until I got to the name Zbigniew Brzezinski, (tell the truth: you cut and pasted his name into your post, didn't you?), when I spit my shai haleeb all over my monitor. While republicans may remember him as tough, what would you say the odds are of Bush appointing a Carter official to a cabinet post? Same as getting hit by lightning at the same time you're&nbsp;discovering Amelia Aerhardt's G-spot?</p>

[Yerdaddy]

<strong>johnniewalker</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>johnniewalker</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br />Bush will get zero benefit from replacing Rumsfeld, so of course he's not going to do it. If he did replace him, he would have to admit a lot of the mistakes that have been made, and acknowledge the incompentcy that surrounds him. <br /><p>You're right - he's not going to do it, but here are the benefits:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601415_pf.html" target="_blank">Forcing Rumsfeld to retire would be a political blow for the White House, at least in the short term: It would be an admission that Bush not only miscalculated the need for a preemptive war against Saddam Hussein but also bungled the plan to pacify and democratize Iraq after the invasion. Nonetheless, history shows that such tough personnel decisions can, eventually, prove healthy for an administration and for a nation, particularly in times of war. They force reassessments of long-standing policy; they help presidents stand back, evaluate and chart new directions</a>. <p>&nbsp;</p><p>Read the OP-ED for the details. It's a good piece.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>He could read my op-ed. <br /><p>I'm honestly trying to understand your op-ed. It sounds like the second paragraph is saying that if you can't spell out all the specific mistakes made that let to the current situation then you can't say whether Rumsfeld is to blame. But I could be wrong. In an effort to keep myself from obsessively forgoing dinner and trying to score some tourist trim and doing just that, (It's litterally giving me the shakes), answer this question: What did you vote in the poll?</p><p>&nbsp;</p>I think fire him b/c the army criticism is the most valid criticism.<br /><p>I owe you a beer, brother!</p><p>And I found this piece when looking for the other one. I like the way the language sound like a tough military officer would write.</p><p><a href="http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/jbowden_20050516.html">http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/jbowden_20050516.html</a></p><p>Now if you boys will&nbsp;excuse me, I'm going to get me some seafood surprise!</p><p>And then maybe get some dinner.</p>

[A.J.]

<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I was into the piece too, until I got to the name Zbigniew Brzezinski, (tell the truth: you cut and pasted his name into your post, didn't you?), when I spit my shai haleeb all over my monitor. While republicans may remember him as tough, what would you say the odds are of Bush appointing a Carter official to a cabinet post? Same as getting hit by lightning at the same time you're&nbsp;discovering Amelia Aerhardt's G-spot?</p><p>I admit I did.&nbsp; I haven't had to spell his name since college!</p><p>I don't know -- but Zbig is the ONLY Carter Administration official that would stand a snowball's chance.</p>

[Yerdaddy]

<strong>A.J.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I was into the piece too, until I got to the name Zbigniew Brzezinski, (tell the truth: you cut and pasted his name into your post, didn't you?), when I spit my shai haleeb all over my monitor. While republicans may remember him as tough, what would you say the odds are of Bush appointing a Carter official to a cabinet post? Same as getting hit by lightning at the same time you're&nbsp;discovering Amelia Aerhardt's G-spot?</p><p>I admit I did.&nbsp; I haven't had to spell his name since college!</p><p>I don't know -- but Zbig is the ONLY Carter Administration official that would stand a snowball's chance.</p><p>OK, maybe. But SURELY Ramsey Clark is next in line for a Supreme Court nomination.</p>