NationStates Jolt Archive

It might be interesting to some to read William F. Buckley's comments on the issue. For those unfamiliar, he is an conservative commentator.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200405111231.asp

SHL

I think the question has now become not IF Rumsfeld will leave, but WHEN he will leave.

There are more reasons for Rumsfeld to stay IN office than get kicked out...

The only big thing wanting him out of office is the over-hyped prisoner abuse scandal.

But if you remove him from secretary of state, we'll go a good month, to maybe 6 months, without a defense secretary, and the war in Iraq will spin out of what little control we still have.

It's a bad move.

And furthermore, Teddy Kennedy shouldn't call for the resignation of anyone if he ca't even say their name right... Come on, "Rumsfield?" lol

Wow, I never thought I'd agree with a William F. Buckley article.

And what, exactly, are the "good reasons" to leave Rummy in his position? As for being without that position for a month to six months, that's why he's still here because they're planning who will replace him.

Rummy needs to go, otherwise his willingness to take accountability for the events in the Middle East means less than nothing and the whole disasterous enterprise is more poisoned that it was to begin with.

Wow, I never thought I'd agree with a William F. Buckley article.

And what, exactly, are the "good reasons" to leave Rummy in his position? As for being without that position for a month to six months, that's why he's still here because they're planning who will replace him.

Rummy needs to go, otherwise his willingness to take accountability for the events in the Middle East means less than nothing and the whole disasterous enterprise is more poisoned that it was to begin with.If we started training a new secy of defense right now, for whatever new administration, then we would be fine, and rummy could leave at the end of this term.

But the problem is, we don't know who's going to win in november, and whoever does win, will have to train their secy of defense with everything the previous secy knows... so, it probably wouldn't make any difference.

The other problem is Edward "That liberal Idiot" Kennedy wants "rumsfield" out today.

Wow, I never thought I'd agree with a William F. Buckley article.

And what, exactly, are the "good reasons" to leave Rummy in his position? As for being without that position for a month to six months, that's why he's still here because they're planning who will replace him.

Rummy needs to go, otherwise his willingness to take accountability for the events in the Middle East means less than nothing and the whole disasterous enterprise is more poisoned that it was to begin with.If we started training a new secy of defense right now, for whatever new administration, then we would be fine, and rummy could leave at the end of this term.

But the problem is, we don't know who's going to win in november, and whoever does win, will have to train their secy of defense with everything the previous secy knows... so, it probably wouldn't make any difference.

The othewr problem is, Edward "That liberal Idiot" Kennedy wants "rumsfield" out today.

Er, this "training" you're referring to can't be that hard as Rummy managed to assume the office on time. I can't believe that this is why they would keep such an obvious liability in place.

As for your other objection about Kennedy, it's not even worth comment.

There are more reasons for Rumsfeld to stay IN office than get kicked out...

The only big thing wanting him out of office is the over-hyped prisoner abuse scandal.

But if you remove him from secretary of state, we'll go a good month, to maybe 6 months, without a defense secretary, and the war in Iraq will spin out of what little control we still have.

It's a bad move.

And furthermore, Teddy Kennedy shouldn't call for the resignation of anyone if he ca't even say their name right... Come on, "Rumsfield?" lol

Well I would be happy to see him leave, not especially for this prisoner abuse scandal but for one thing, the fact that he completely failed to have a comprehensive plan concerning security and redevelopment in post war Iraq and was actually naive enough to believe that a small military presence would be capable of maintaining security in the region. I would like to see him "take the flack" for completely failing in this regard.

There are more reasons for Rumsfeld to stay IN office than get kicked out...

The only big thing wanting him out of office is the over-hyped prisoner abuse scandal.

But if you remove him from secretary of state, we'll go a good month, to maybe 6 months, without a defense secretary, and the war in Iraq will spin out of what little control we still have.

It's a bad move.

And furthermore, Teddy Kennedy shouldn't call for the resignation of anyone if he ca't even say their name right... Come on, "Rumsfield?" lol

Well I would be happy to see him leave, not especially for this prisoner abuse scandal but for one thing, the fact that he completely failed to have a comprehensive plan concerning security and redevelopment in post war Iraq and was actually naive enough to believe that a small military presence would be capable of maintaining security in the region. I would like to see him "take the flack" for completely failing in this regard.

There are more reasons for Rumsfeld to stay IN office than get kicked out...

The only big thing wanting him out of office is the over-hyped prisoner abuse scandal.

But if you remove him from secretary of state, we'll go a good month, to maybe 6 months, without a defense secretary, and the war in Iraq will spin out of what little control we still have.

It's a bad move.

And furthermore, Teddy Kennedy shouldn't call for the resignation of anyone if he ca't even say their name right... Come on, "Rumsfield?" lol

Well I would be happy to see him leave, not especially for this prisoner abuse scandal but for one thing, the fact that he completely failed to have a comprehensive plan concerning security and redevelopment in post war Iraq and was actually naive enough to believe that a small military presence would be capable of maintaining security in the region. I would like to see him "take the flack" for completely failing in this regard.

Exactly! Rummy's legacy in Iraq has been misstep after misstep, blank check after blank check. He has shown time and again he is completely incapable of dealing with the position he is in and his whole handling of this debacle is yet another black mark against him.

I don't see why replacing Rumsfeld should be a problem. Don't tell me there aren't a load of competent people ready to fill his shoes. For one thing, it beggars belief that he could be the only competent man for the job, given his terrible standing with the Army. For another, in the event of his death, accidental or as a result of an assassination, there has got to be a well-prepared process to replace him without disruption to operations. Otherwise, I'm giving the US government too much credit.

Basically, if Rumsfeld cannot be replaced at short notice with minimum disruption, one has to question the competence of the government. So that argument for keeping him does not cut it.

I think he has a manic psychosis. Such people are brimming with confidence and can crack jokes during the darkest hours, which seems reassuring at first until you realize they are irrational. They have no plan, just this unjustified sense of euphoria, super-confidence.

I knew someone with this disorder. He mortgaged his house and went to Las Vegas, confident that he would make a fortune. Of course, he ended up ruining his family finances.

I don't see why replacing Rumsfeld should be a problem. Don't tell me there aren't a load of competent people ready to fill his shoes. For one thing, it beggars belief that he could be the only competent man for the job, given his terrible standing with the Army. For another, in the event of his death, accidental or as a result of an assassination, there has got to be a well-prepared process to replace him without disruption to operations. Otherwise, I'm giving the US government too much credit.

Basically, if Rumsfeld cannot be replaced at short notice with minimum disruption, one has to question the competence of the government. So that argument for keeping him does not cut it.

The government is incompetent, has been since post-WWII. You didn't know that? It's all that damn bureaucracy (re: red tape).

Ok, so if Donald Rumsfeld stepped down that would mean Paul Wolfowitz would assume the duties. As someone pointed out earlier, there are plenty of competent people to take over the job :D

The only argument I can come up with for not replacing Rumsfeld is that his chief deputy is Paul Wolfowitz and he would be the natural choice to take over.

And if Rumsfeld does resign--because he certainly won't be fired or impeached--the business of the DoD will continue. Bush can name an acting SecDef who will do the work while he gets confirmed (or not) by the Senate.

Ok, so if Donald Rumsfeld stepped down that would mean Paul Wolfowitz would assume the duties. As someone pointed out earlier, there are plenty of competent people to take over the job :D

Yes, but then the average joe on the street would get a chance to see what a truly evil bastage Wolfowitz is first hand.

Is there an echo in here?

HELLO...HELLO...hello

Is there an echo in here?

HELLO...HELLO...hello

Was there a point to this post? :lol:

Was there a point to this post? :lol:

There's always a point to my posts, unless otherwise indicated.

Rumsfeld's in even more trouble than I imagined. The NY Post--the Post!!!--is calling for his resignation and doing so in harsh terms. (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20841.htm) This isn't the whole thing--just a few excerpts, but it's worth reading in toto.

Rumsfeld has maintained a positive image with much of America because he controls information fanatically and tolerates no deviation from the party line. Differing opinions are punished in today's Pentagon - and every field general who has spoken plainly of the deficiencies of either the non-plan for the occupation of Iraq, the lack of sufficient troops (in Iraq or overall) or any aspect of Rumsfeld's "transformation" plan has seen his career ended.

It isn't treason to tell the truth in wartime. But it verges on treason to lie. And Rumsfeld lies.

Our military needs vigorous, continual internal debate. Contrary to popular myth, our officer corps has a long tradition of dissenting opinions. And the grave new world in which we find ourselves is not susceptible to party-line solutions.

Want to know just how bad this editorialist thinks Rumsfeld is? I'm privileged to spend a good bit of time with our military officers, from generals to new lieutenants. And I have never seen such distrust of a public official in the senior ranks. Not even of Bill Clinton. Rumsfeld & Co. have trashed our ground forces every way they could. Only the quality of those in uniform saved us from a debacle in Iraq.

Holeeeee shit.

Rumsfeld's in even more trouble than I imagined. The NY Post--the Post!!!--is calling for his resignation and doing so in harsh terms. (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20841.htm) This isn't the whole thing--just a few excerpts, but it's worth reading in toto.

Rumsfeld has maintained a positive image with much of America because he controls information fanatically and tolerates no deviation from the party line. Differing opinions are punished in today's Pentagon - and every field general who has spoken plainly of the deficiencies of either the non-plan for the occupation of Iraq, the lack of sufficient troops (in Iraq or overall) or any aspect of Rumsfeld's "transformation" plan has seen his career ended.

It isn't treason to tell the truth in wartime. But it verges on treason to lie. And Rumsfeld lies.

Our military needs vigorous, continual internal debate. Contrary to popular myth, our officer corps has a long tradition of dissenting opinions. And the grave new world in which we find ourselves is not susceptible to party-line solutions.

Want to know just how bad this editorialist thinks Rumsfeld is? I'm privileged to spend a good bit of time with our military officers, from generals to new lieutenants. And I have never seen such distrust of a public official in the senior ranks. Not even of Bill Clinton. Rumsfeld & Co. have trashed our ground forces every way they could. Only the quality of those in uniform saved us from a debacle in Iraq.

Holeeeee shit.

LOL. I love how the conservative bastion of reporting, the Post, can't even at this juncture bring themselves to outright call a lie by a political figure treasonous. Mind you, a covering up a blowjob was an out and out threat to the very sovergnty of our nation and deserved impeachment proceedings. Covering up 22 dead bodies and multiple human rights violations, however, is still only "verging on treason." Gotta love them double standards.

I hope Rumsfeld does resign and then pull a Paul O'Neill.

I hope Rumsfeld does resign and then pull a Paul O'Neill.That would require that Rumsfeld be an honorable man. By this time, I think we've discovered that is not the case.

Wow, I just read that NYPost article. That was pretty harsh, given the reticence of the media (and NYP in particular) to print anything detracting from the Bush party line. I think the writing may very well be on the wall for Rummy. Question is, will it be a resignation or a firing and is someone going to have to go to The Hauge afterwards?

Wow, I just read that NYPost article. That was pretty harsh, given the reticence of the media (and NYP in particular) to print anything detracting from the Bush party line. I think the writing may very well be on the wall for Rummy. Question is, will it be a resignation or a firing and is someone going to have to go to The Hauge afterwards?No firing. I honestly think that Bush is afraid to be President without the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice triumverate.

Wow, I just read that NYPost article. That was pretty harsh, given the reticence of the media (and NYP in particular) to print anything detracting from the Bush party line. I think the writing may very well be on the wall for Rummy. Question is, will it be a resignation or a firing and is someone going to have to go to The Hauge afterwards?No firing. I honestly think that Bush is afraid to be President without the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice triumverate.

I don't know. I'm starting to change my ideas of what's going on in the White House. I think Bush may finally be starting to realize that he's been handled for the past four years and has had virtually no say and I think it may start to grate on his sense of pride that he's been the Neo-Con Hawk puppet. Whatever happens, it'll be interesting to watch the melt down, particularly if there is some truth to these new allegations that the Berg tape was either a set up or an obvious distraction.

...he's been the Neo-Con Hawk puppet...

That was very nice :!: :!: :!: Hawk-puppet/sock puppet :lol: :lol: :lol:

Be honest, was that of your own creation? If so, nicely done.

...he's been the Neo-Con Hawk puppet...

That was very nice :!: :!: :!: Hawk-puppet/sock puppet :lol: :lol: :lol:

Be honest, was that of your own creation? If so, nicely done.

Doh, I just noticed that. I completely can't claim a concious credit for it, though. Damn! I finally say something sort of funny and witty and it's accidental. :oops:

Wow, I just read that NYPost article. That was pretty harsh, given the reticence of the media (and NYP in particular) to print anything detracting from the Bush party line. I think the writing may very well be on the wall for Rummy. Question is, will it be a resignation or a firing and is someone going to have to go to The Hauge afterwards?No firing. I honestly think that Bush is afraid to be President without the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice triumverate.

I don't know. I'm starting to change my ideas of what's going on in the White House. I think Bush may finally be starting to realize that he's been handled for the past four years and has had virtually no say and I think it may start to grate on his sense of pride that he's been the Neo-Con Hawk puppet. Whatever happens, it'll be interesting to watch the melt down, particularly if there is some truth to these new allegations that the Berg tape was either a set up or an obvious distraction.

Have you read from any reliable sources that the Berg tape may have indeed been a set-up? I haven't heard that. I would be most interested in reading it though if you have found a reliable source claiming it.

Wow, I just read that NYPost article. That was pretty harsh, given the reticence of the media (and NYP in particular) to print anything detracting from the Bush party line. I think the writing may very well be on the wall for Rummy. Question is, will it be a resignation or a firing and is someone going to have to go to The Hauge afterwards?No firing. I honestly think that Bush is afraid to be President without the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice triumverate.

I don't know. I'm starting to change my ideas of what's going on in the White House. I think Bush may finally be starting to realize that he's been handled for the past four years and has had virtually no say and I think it may start to grate on his sense of pride that he's been the Neo-Con Hawk puppet. Whatever happens, it'll be interesting to watch the melt down, particularly if there is some truth to these new allegations that the Berg tape was either a set up or an obvious distraction.

Have you read from any reliable sources that the Berg tape may have indeed been a set-up? I haven't heard that. I would be most interested in reading it though if you have found a reliable source claiming it.

No, no reliable sources, however I have heard that the family is claiming they recieved e-mails from a woman in the US consulate who informed them that Berg was in US custody and she is now denying that she sent them, but the family has them. I'll see if I can find a link to that.

Have you read from any reliable sources that the Berg tape may have indeed been a set-up? I haven't heard that. I would be most interested in reading it though if you have found a reliable source claiming it.I've heard it, but not from what I would consider reliable sources. There's been a breakdown of various inconsistencies spreading around the internet, but it seems to be of the same level of logic as the argument that the explosion at the Pentagon on 9-11 wasn't a plane crash.

Personally, I don't care if it's real or a set up, and I don't imagine Daniel Berg does either.

Have you read from any reliable sources that the Berg tape may have indeed been a set-up? I haven't heard that. I would be most interested in reading it though if you have found a reliable source claiming it.I've heard it, but not from what I would consider reliable sources. There's been a breakdown of various inconsistencies spreading around the internet, but it seems to be of the same level of logic as the argument that the explosion at the Pentagon on 9-11 wasn't a plane crash.

Personally, I don't care if it's real or a set up, and I don't imagine Daniel Berg does either.

Yeah I hear ya.. but a set-up how? That the Americans may have handed him over to a certain group? Or that is was???? I don't understand what is implied by "set-up" My husband and I watched the video on the net (we actually regretted watching it after) but, the dude is minus one head.

Yeah I hear ya.. but a set-up how? That the Americans may have handed him over to a certain group? Or that is was???? I don't understand what is implied by "set-up" My husband and I watched the video on the net (we actually regretted watching it after) but, the dude is minus one head.The conspiracy theorists are pointing out the orange jumpsuit, the chair (which both look military issue) and the scream that apparently continues while Berg's throat is being cut, and other "inconsistencies" that they claim add up to a government plot (and the wackier claim that it's the Mossad doing the dirty work).

Wow, I just read that NYPost article. That was pretty harsh, given the reticence of the media (and NYP in particular) to print anything detracting from the Bush party line. I think the writing may very well be on the wall for Rummy. Question is, will it be a resignation or a firing and is someone going to have to go to The Hauge afterwards?No firing. I honestly think that Bush is afraid to be President without the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice triumverate.
Won't this be another double whammy for Bush? Dick Cheney just went on record declaring that Rumsfeld is the BEST Sec. of Defence EVER, and Bush just finished stating that Rummy was doing a great job..

Other considerations for Rummy to leave:

Underestimated number of troops required to secure Iraq.

Sent over inferior equipment, although new, it was incapable of withstanding rocket propelled grenades, and

Did not supply the basic personal protective equipment to cut down on casualties, such as bullet proof vesting.

However, the biggest reason would be for the massive attempt to deceive the American public at large.

I would also imagine that if Rummy goes, it will generate a chain reaction through the ranks?

Regardless if this conspiracy theory is true (and there are some interesting points that don't quite seem to match up with the presented information, not to mention the rather convenient timing), there was a whole lot of something going on over there as this CNN article points out. No one really knew where he was, when he was there and who had him.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.berg/index.html

Yeah I hear ya.. but a set-up how? That the Americans may have handed him over to a certain group? Or that is was???? I don't understand what is implied by "set-up" My husband and I watched the video on the net (we actually regretted watching it after) but, the dude is minus one head.The conspiracy theorists are pointing out the orange jumpsuit, the chair (which both look military issue) and the scream that apparently continues while Berg's throat is being cut, and other "inconsistencies" that they claim add up to a government plot (and the wackier claim that it's the Mossad doing the dirty work).

Ah, okay.. I see. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

hmmm, I wonder if there is any thing to it... perhaps will shall never know.

Yeah I hear ya.. but a set-up how? That the Americans may have handed him over to a certain group? Or that is was???? I don't understand what is implied by "set-up" My husband and I watched the video on the net (we actually regretted watching it after) but, the dude is minus one head.The conspiracy theorists are pointing out the orange jumpsuit, the chair (which both look military issue) and the scream that apparently continues while Berg's throat is being cut, and other "inconsistencies" that they claim add up to a government plot (and the wackier claim that it's the Mossad doing the dirty work).

Ah, okay.. I see. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

hmmm, I wonder if there is any thing to it... perhaps will shall never know.
Some info was posted on another thread, by Beloved and Hope:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3163526&highlight=#3163526

Just a right-wing kook on a saturday night
Lookin for the fight of his life
In the real time world no one knows him at all
They all say he's crazy

Lockin loadin' to the beat of his heart
Changing reasons in the fight
He has danced into the danger zone
When the dancer becomes the dance

It can cut you like a knife
If the gift becomes the fire
All the while you're stuck between
What's will and what will be

(CHORUS)
He's a maniac, maniac on the war
And he's twisting like he never has before
He's a maniac, maniac on the war
And he's twisting like he never has before

On the ice-filled line of sanity
It's a place most never see
It's a hard-won place of mystery
You can touch it but can't hold it

You work all your life for that moment in time
It can come or pass you by
It's a push of the world but there's always a chance
If the hunger stays alive

There's a cold kenetic heat
Struggling, stretching for the beat
Never stopping
Trying to p**s against the wind

(CHORUS)

la la la la la la la la
la la la la la la la la

(instrumental break)

It can cut you like a knife
If the gift becomes the fire
All the while you're stuck between
What's will and what will be

He's a maniac, maniac at your door
And he's twisting like he never has before
He's a maniac, maniac at your door
And he's twisting like he never has before

Regardless if this conspiracy theory is true (and there are some interesting points that don't quite seem to match up with the presented information, not to mention the rather convenient timing), there was a whole lot of something going on over there as this CNN article points out. No one really knew where he was, when he was there and who had him.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.berg/index.html

**GULP** Slap me silly and call me a lunatic, but I am dangerously close to raising an eyebrow in the same direction as you here. There are some very interesting inconsistencies in this story.

Such as his custody. The report says he was in Iraqi police custody and that the FBI visited him on three occasions. Uh, aren't we running the Iraqi police at the moment? Are we in the habit of allowing American civillians into a war zone with no apparent reason save job hunting? (Has outsourcing become that much of an issue at home?) Don't we have the authority to summarily remove an itinerant American citizen from a war zone?

By contrast the Iraqi authorities story makes much more sense. I quote the CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.berg/index.html),article, "Iraqi authorities said Thursday they held the American civilian only briefly before handing him over to U.S. troops, police sources in Mosul said Thursday."

This goes beyond incompetance. The military does not let loose ends dangle. This has a distinct odor of bovine politics. But then perhaps I am a bit skeptical due to my upbringing. My father was involved in intelligence work during WWII.

SHL

Regardless if this conspiracy theory is true (and there are some interesting points that don't quite seem to match up with the presented information, not to mention the rather convenient timing), there was a whole lot of something going on over there as this CNN article points out. No one really knew where he was, when he was there and who had him.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.berg/index.html

**GULP** Slap me silly and call me a lunatic, but I am dangerously close to raising an eyebrow in the same direction as you here. There are some very interesting inconsistencies in this story.

Such as his custody. The report says he was in Iraqi police custody and that the FBI visited him on three occasions. Uh, aren't we running the Iraqi police at the moment? Are we in the habit of allowing American civillians into a war zone with no apparent reason save job hunting? (Has outsourcing become that much of an issue at home?) Don't we have the authority to summarily remove an itinerant American citizen from a war zone?

By contrast the Iraqi authorities story makes much more sense. I quote the CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.berg/index.html),article, "Iraqi authorities said Thursday they held the American civilian only briefly before handing him over to U.S. troops, police sources in Mosul said Thursday."

This goes beyond incompetance. The military does not let loose ends dangle. This has a distinct odor of bovine politics. But then perhaps I am a bit skeptical due to my upbringing. My father was involved in intelligence work during WWII.

SHL

I know. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but the things that are emerging here and disturbing to say the least.

I'm still leaning toward disbelief, but I wonder when this will reach enough of a boil that the potential of it all hits the mainstream media. A week? Two? Or will it just be dismissed as the ravings of a few nutters?

I mean, Clinton was accused of drugrunning and murder on far flimsier sus[icion.

I'm still leaning toward disbelief, but I wonder when this will reach enough of a boil that the potential of it all hits the mainstream media. A week? Two? Or will it just be dismissed as the ravings of a few nutters?

I mean, Clinton was accused of drugrunning and murder on far flimsier sus[icion.

Gee, **he sighs wistfully** I almost have a sense of nostaliga for Clinton. I always felt more secure when all the Head of State was up to was getting some head. I dunno, kind of made me feel that at least we don't have a hot head on 'the nuke button.'

SHL