NationStates Jolt Archive

And at the same time he had press conferences and news interviews defending himself??? Sounds shady.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-rum04.html
In an interview taped Thursday for CNN's ''Larry King Live,'' Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he twice submitted his resignation to President Bush during the height of the Abu Ghraib publicity last spring.

But of course Bush wouldn't let him resign -- if he did it could be taken as an admission that they had handled Iraq wrong!

I heard about this

...

But of course Bush wouldn't let him resign -- if he did it could be taken as an admission that they had handled Iraq wrong!
I don't know why you say that. If Bush had thought that Rumsfeld had some responsibility for all the bad PR they received over Abu--Graib, he certainly would have fired him. The offer of a resignation seems like an honorable thing to do if there is some question about policy.

I don't know why you say that. If Bush had thought that Rumsfeld had some responsibility for all the bad PR they received over Abu--Graib, he certainly would have fired him.

Unless... like I just said... it would look to the rest of the world as an admission that the administration had done something wrong. I'm not even the first one who suggested this. It was brought up I beleive in an interview between John Stewart and writer Sidney Blumenthal.

I think you give Bush more credit for being a responsible guy than he deserves.

wow - I think you are probably right. Why else wouldn't Bush let Rumsfeld quit when he wanted to?

It would have been a great thing indeed to see Rumsfeld outta there.

Unless... like I just said... it would look to the rest of the world as an admission that the administration had done something wrong. I'm not even the first one who suggested this. It was brought up I beleive in an interview between John Stewart and writer Sidney Blumenthal.

I think you give Bush more credit for being a responsible guy than he deserves.

Jon Stewart and Sid Blumenthal are two of the most unbiased guys I've ever seen. Sounds like a sour grapes Democrat suggested the idea.

I think Bush deserves an enormous amount of credit for having the vision to defend the US and not just prosecute terrorists as criminals. I think he also deserves an enormous amount of credit for picking bright folks to advise him and then listening to them.

I think he also deserves an enormous amount of credit for picking bright folks to advise him and then listening to them.

Bush has been proven to purposely fire all the bright folks and bring in ones who don't know what they're talking about in science. What reason do you have to believe he doesn't do the same in every area?

I think Bush deserves an enormous amount of credit for having the vision to defend the US and not just prosecute terrorists as criminals. I think he also deserves an enormous amount of credit for picking bright folks to advise him and then listening to them.
The Bush policies basically inspire more people to become terrorists.

I'm not saying that the Democrats have the answers, but I'm certain that Bush doesn't.

The Bush policies basically inspire more people to become terrorists.

I'm not saying that the Democrats have the answers, but I'm certain that Bush doesn't.
What policy has inspired more people to become terrorists? Was it the policy that you either with us and on the side of liberty, or you support terror? Was it the policy that we should defend ourselves against terror? If either of these policies has made terrorists uncomfortable, too damn bad. If these policies have made despotic Islamists uncomfortable, again, too damn bad.

Or was it really the fact that Bush was willing to do what he said he would do?

Actually, it WAS the policy that you are either with us or the terrorists that inspired more terrorists to join up. Look at the Al-qeda recruitment projections for before and after the Iraq occupation; they spiked when we invaded. Simple as that.

That's not in question really, Al-queda has indeed gotten BIGGER since we started our war on terror. Their numbers have swelled and their cells have multiplied. The question is, have they gotten better, more dangerous, and more effective.

The answer to that looks to be yes for some, no for others; look at the numbers for arrests of suspected terrorists in the early days of the Iraq occupation; the numbers have fallen considerably since then, with a few spikes during major US offensives. The reason for this is that we've weeded out the truly incompetant and the unlucky, the one's we've missed have been honed through adversity into very potent and crafty insurgent forces.

We're creating better terrorists. We've ground away the weak and left only the strong. Oops. There are more of them, and they are better at what they do. We've given them Iraq to play with, turning it into the ultimate live-fire training camp for terrorists. Yes, many who do join up are soon captured or killed, but many more survive long enough to become very dangerous indeed.

The problem is, now what? How long to we grind away at the problem? The numbers of recruits may thin eventually, but that's contingent on their not being any further increases in popular support for the terrorists. We may capture enough of their most effective leaders if we stay longer, but we also may create more of them if we stay. If we leave we simply doom ourselves to future terrorist acts by these very people in the future. There are no good answers any more. There are only "least-worst" cases.

Yes; the policy of "Us or them" polarized the world. The problem is, we're not the most attactive "us" for the world to rally around anymore, and the "them" is not the small group of misfits they once were. That's bad policy.

Rumsfeld, you fool... do you not realize that there exists no way out? Muahaha... muahaha... muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

-Sincerely,
The People Who Are Most Definitely Not Holding a Shotgun to Donald Rumsfeld's Head at This Very Moment

Rumsfeld, you fool... do you not realize that there exists no way out? Muahaha... muahaha... muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

-Sincerely,
The People Who Are Most Definitely Not Holding a Shotgun to Donald Rumsfeld's Head at This Very Moment


I think rummy holds quite a few of the cards in the administration.

Note he kept his cabinet position in the 2nd term.

And besides, it is rummy's old pal cheney who holds shotguns for the bush admin, recall his hunting excursion with the good ole boy tony scaliwag and his subsequent refusal to remove himself from the cheney energy task force case.

Actually, I have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't watch the news much or read the newspapers, because it's becoming less and less about genuine news, and less about useful information, over time. Gradually, slowly, without anyone noticing it, it went from stuff people cared about to sensationalist scare tactics and rich athletes slaying their wives. Now, who is this "Osama bin Laden" person I've been hearing so much about?

And again, that was just a joke.

Unless... like I just said... it would look to the rest of the world as an admission that the administration had done something wrong. I'm not even the first one who suggested this. It was brought up I beleive in an interview between John Stewart and writer Sidney Blumenthal.

I think you give Bush more credit for being a responsible guy than he deserves.
Or maybe he wasn't willing to sacrifice Rumsfeld on the altar of political expediency.

Or maybe he wasn't willing to sacrifice Rumsfeld on the altar of political expediency.


I still maintain that the decison making on who gets to be secretary of war works in the same fashion as the one that decided who got to be VP.

And besides, being republican and in office means never having to appologize, and if rummy was ever anything but God's Gift the Greatest Defense Secretary in History then all of rummy's tragic and deadly mistakes would have to be acknowledged.

...We're creating better terrorists. We've ground away the weak and left only the strong. Oops. There are more of them, and they are better at what they do. We've given them Iraq to play with, turning it into the ultimate live-fire training camp for terrorists. Yes, many who do join up are soon captured or killed, but many more survive long enough to become very dangerous indeed.

The problem is, now what? How long to we grind away at the problem? The numbers of recruits may thin eventually, but that's contingent on their not being any further increases in popular support for the terrorists. We may capture enough of their most effective leaders if we stay longer, but we also may create more of them if we stay. If we leave we simply doom ourselves to future terrorist acts by these very people in the future. There are no good answers any more. There are only "least-worst" cases.

Yes; the policy of "Us or them" polarized the world. The problem is, we're not the most attactive "us" for the world to rally around anymore, and the "them" is not the small group of misfits they once were. That's bad policy.
Turns out "us or them" was just rhetoric. If Bush really meant it, we would be planning elections in Syria, too. But he has made some bold statements that are directed at Iran. Bravo!

I don't think there is any evidence that the terrorists are getting better. What was the last big, well planned Al-Qaeda attack? The one in the South Pacific? The train bombing in Spain? How many really good opportunities have they missed?

Even the attacks in Iraq are becoming less and less lethal. The guys that are good at improvised bombs are getting killed or captured and the lousy and inexperienced ones are the ones left to to take up the slack.

The areas where the Islamist fundamentalists were free to train replacements are gone. There aren't any more really safe havens. We're a long way from eradicating them, but we sure are making some great gains.

Plus, we're not fighting them in the streets of New York, Boston, or London. That's what a less aggressive policy would have encouraged. If this is bad policy, bring it on!