Dagobahn Eagle Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Believe it or not, but Donald Rumsfeld has apparently resigned as Secretary of defense. WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as defense secretary on Wednesday, one day after midterm elections in which opposition to the war in Iraq contributed to heavy Republican losses. Wow. Just wow. Now I only worry that his successor might be just as bad as him. I know nothing of this R. Gates.
manoman81 Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Yeah I don't know how this will work out. I'm happy he's gone but at the same time who's going to be next? There's a lot of questions that need be answered since it looks like, for the moment, that there will be a party change in Congress. Next spring should be pretty interesting I think...
Totenkopf Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Generally, appointments like Gates (this far into an administration) probably won't have a significant impact on overall policy. All the more so b/c his position will only last two years (does anyone really think the next prez won't be a dem?). Still, DE, you could always google him if you're remotely curious.
Jae Onasi Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 I think I heard on the radio today that he's a former CIA director but I could be wrong. Rumsfeld needed to go a long time ago.
Mace MacLeod Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 ^^Yup. Robert Gates, CIA director under Dubya Sr. Just imagine the laughs they must have together...
TK-8252 Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 This White House must be retarded. They waited until AFTER the election to fire Rumsfeld. If they fired him a week ago they could have held Congress.
Mace MacLeod Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 This White House must be retarded.Where've you been...?
Emperor Devon Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 Heh, the wiki article is already closed to new users. Rumsfeld was not the best of people to hold that post. But with the needless war in Iraq, will Gates be able to any better? I'm curious to see.
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 Well, at least Gates has plenty of experience.
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 Yeah, but then so did Rumsfeld. I'm trying to have a positive mindset. Negative Nancy.
Totenkopf Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 Ok, gloomy gus. A little sunshine for you then. Apparently Gates seems to be in favor of engaging in a dialogue with Iran. Better than turning a deaf ear, eh?
edlib Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 Where've you been...?QFE! (I actually laughed out loud at that! ) Perhaps Rove isn't quite the strategist he's been made out to be... or Bush was just too damn stubborn to listen to him on Rumsfeld this whole time. I personally think Bush actually believed that there was no way the Republicans were going to lose this time, so there was really no reason to let Rummy go.
Jae Onasi Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 Heh, the wiki article is already closed to new users. Rumsfeld was not the best of people to hold that post. But with the needless war in Iraq, will Gates be able to any better? I'm curious to see. He's been a deputy NSA along with the CIA director spot. I believe he's on the team that's headed up by Baker evaluating the situation in Iraq and how to resolve it. At least he might have some kind of mentality other than Rumsfeld's *insert Neanderthal grunt* "Ugh. Kill!"
Nancy Allen`` Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 Now how can democrats say that Iraq is bad? It got Bush out of the Senate and in the next two years the Republicans will lose by a landslide.
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 Now how can democrats say that Iraq is bad? 600,000 dead Iraqi civilians. 85% of the world hates us. We've created more terrorists there than we've captured there. I for one would rather have a Republican government than all those things.
Nancy Allen`` Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 Same here. I cannot help but wonder if the Democrats in some way are greatful for the war because it turned America and the world against Bush.
Mace MacLeod Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 ^^^Well, there's being grateful because a situation turns political winds in your directions, then there's being grateful for the situation itself. I rather doubt the Democrats are out there going, "Hey, Iraq is a cesspool of death and destruction! Great!" At least I hope they aren't.
Nancy Allen`` Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 I don't think anyone could cheer the devestation of Iraq, not if they had a shred of human decency. Al Qaeda do, for sure, but the situation in Iraq has played right into their hands. Hatred for America, removal of Saddam, attacks in direct response to the war, a hat trick.
Q Posted November 10, 2006 Posted November 10, 2006 Well, Rummy was the first to read the writing on the wall. I wonder who'll be wise enough to follow him?
Emperor Devon Posted November 10, 2006 Posted November 10, 2006 At least he might have some kind of mentality other than Rumsfeld's *insert Neanderthal grunt* "Ugh. Kill!" Heh, I've yet to see a mentality that could be even worse. He's a family friend of the Bushes, it seems. Interesting.
Windu Chi Posted November 10, 2006 Posted November 10, 2006 Heh, I've yet to see a mentality that could be even worse. He's a family friend of the Bushes, it seems. Interesting. Bush is going to keep replacing failures with friends of his family. Until his ass is out of there.
Prime Posted November 10, 2006 Posted November 10, 2006 As big as a mistake the whole thing is, let's see what the Democrats propose as solutions... It isn't an easy problem to solve.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.