Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by LadyEagle, Nov 8, 2006.
Rumsfeld will step down effective immediately - per Fox News.
Maybe now we'll actually do this Iraq thing right.
Let's be honest. He is stepping down because of what happened yesterday. There is always more than meets the eye. The news accounts make clear that he had no plans to step down. What does this mean? He was fired.
I say, it's about time! His plans were not working. It is as simple as that.
I doubt that it changes much. What major military difference will occur that will get our troops home? Does anyone really expect troops out of Iraq by year's end? Next summer? When?
He was likely...
Fired, canned, given the pink slip, given the cold shoulder, thrown out, taken out, given the old "what-for," took the hit, got hooked in the jaw, got tossed like 10 day old fish, etc. etc.
Now, if President Bush had done this a month ago, maybe the GOP could have saved a few seats.
==I seriously doubt the troops will be home by years end. If that happened Iraq would collapse. Many democrats are talking about getting situation stable and then starting a withdrawal. Right now that is the position I support. A slow, organized, responsible pull out.
That' s always been the plan. Get Iraq stable and self-governing, and then pull out. There's no change there. The change will be in how we go about it.
Yep. And so, America spoke at the voting booth since all the opinion polls didn't seem to make a difference to the WH. Rummy should have been gone long, long ago, IMO, if for nothing else, sending our troops into battle without sufficient body armor and up-armored vehicles. Over 100 American soldiers died in Iraq in October.
The Hack, may he RIP, would be happy today.
I concur that it does not change much. In fact, it is almost worse as yet another OSS guy gets another significant position of power.
LE, Do you believe that America should be governed by polls?
If not, then why suggest that public opinion polls should have made a difference to the WH (unless you think the WH should abandon decision making to sticking their finger in the wind)?
If so, then why even have a government? Let's just have pollsters and order takers.
Furthermore, how can you possibly expect a random sampling of 1000 or so people to have an informed opinion on Iraq, or on any other topic?
agreed. we are not a democracy, nor should we ever be.
Constitutional republic. big difference.
PL, Rumsfield was arrogant and incompetent. Bush loyalty is what kept him in place. I'm not suggesting that policy be governed by opinion polls, but to be bullheaded & keep an incompetent person in such a strategic position that affects the welfare of the troops and American sons & daughters serving in harm's way is just flat out wrong. The American people knew it, the retired generals knew it, and many even spoke out about him, after they no longer had to worry about serving under his leadership. Like I said, The Hack, would be happy today. America has spoken. Perhaps if Rummy had gone last week, the election would have turned out differently.
Regardless of what I felt about Rummy, I was momentarily surprised when I read the CNN headline.
Then I tho't, with the results at the polls, this is really not a surprise.
Perhaps now enough troops will be dispatched to secure the country and get it stabilized. Then we can pull out.
Double edged sword. Anti war activists will probably love it.
More targets. American troop fatalities will increase, at least in the short run.
Daisy, what makes you think that the USA can be more successful than the British government in over 100 years,,then they pulled out too..
You will never change the arab nations. They were better with Saddam Hussein in power. At least they feared him and they kept their place.
All of that may be true. But none of that is what you stated. Your post said taht Bush should have listened to the polls and removed Rumsfeld before.
So my question was about making decisions based on polls. If you don't think he should (which you seem to say here), then you previous post makes no sense.
Perhaps. Bush always said that the generals on the ground decided the troop levels. He said if they asked for more they would get more. Who knows ...
The British were never there in the situation that we are now. Can it be done? Sure ... Will it be hard? Sure.
PL, oh but they were. Not fighting a so-called war on terrorism, but the Brits were there for a long sustained time and lost blood, troops, and nearly bankrupted their treasure. The battles we are fighting in Iraq now are merely history repeating itself with more modern weapons in the hands of those killing us. The Bush dream of a democratic Iraq, an ally of the West, is just that - a foolish dream.
"There is something very sinister to my mind in this mesopotamian entanglement," Winston Churchill wrote his Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, in August 1920. "Week after week and month after month for a long time we shall have a continuance of this miserable, wasteful, sporadic warfare marked from time to time certainly by minor disasters and cuttings off of troops and agents, and very possibly attended by some very grave occurrence."
With hundreds of thousands of troops concentrated on a very small area, with a fledgling democracy already in place, with the will and determination to win? Well, we might have to scratch the last.
Perhaps we should frame this another way. What if the British had gone whole-heartedly into and fixed it. We wouldn't be dealing with this now. So that is a good reason to stick it out and fix the problem.
And again, my issue is not to defend us being there, or to defend the way it was done. My point was merely about your original statement, and to remind us that we have to finish it, or it gets worse.
PL, it's gonna get worse anyway. Iraq is just delaying (for a little while) the jihad that will end up being conducted within the USA. It is a diversion, but it is unwinnable unless we are willing to fight it like it should be fought - all out. We cannot win the "hearts and minds" of Iraqi muslims and Iraq is not the be all or end all of islamic terrorism.
Iraq cannot be "fixed." End time prophecy will tell you that much, i.e., Babylon.