Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down......

[Aaron Yarbough]

Well it's about time!!!!!



The Associated Press is reporting that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down.......

 

[Travis Munday]

Seriously?



I agree, he out lasted his usefulness; that's not to say that whomever will replace him won't botch things up as bad...

 

[Dale Carlson]

Bush nominated former CIA chief Robert Gates to replace Rumsfeld. That ought to be interesting.

 

[Jeffrey Travis]

He was a few days too late or he may have had some impact on the elections.

 

[EddieS'04]

Strategic move in hopes to get along with the new congress..

 

[John Draper]

He was a few days too late or he may have had some impact on the elections

Agree, but I would add a few years to those days. I don't think his "do more with less" philosophy works in a war.

 

[Eric Pennal]

He was a few days too late or he may have had some impact on the elections.

Looks like the election had an impact on HIM! It wasn't a coincidence he quit the next day.

 

[TracN Jack]

Unfortunately HE was allowed to have such a major impact on U.S. History.... at least in this adminsitration.



Hope he enjoys retirement...

 

[Can Trac]

Didn't GW say just last week that the Rumps was gonna be there til the end? Caught again in another lie. I love watching American politics! :lol:

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Didn't GW say just last week that the Rumps was gonna be there til the end? Caught again in another lie. I love watching American politics!

Uh, that was the plan. Rummy offered his resignation on the results that were comming in on the election. MY president decided to accept his resignation.



So exactly where was the lie? Where were any of the "lies"? It's not like he perjered himself in front of a grand jury or anything.



And as far as switching days before the election.... what kind of message would that have sent? The same message the Bill Clinton sent every election.... I will do whatever it takes to remain in power... which is not necessarily the right thing.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yeah, it's funny how people really don't understand what a LIE is. The definition I like to use is: "to tell that which you know is not true". What other definition is there?



So, folks, when exactly did Bush lie? Did he lie about Rummy? About WMDs?



TJR

 

[R 3]

Wow - I guess y'all support Saddam still being in power w/ nukes, WMD, etc. etc..



Jeez. No appreciation for troops whatsoever.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

R, that's actually a little out of line, IMHO (the Jeez comment).



Hear me out, please, because I am on your side.



Though I have supported Bush and supported the war, I do feel that people SHOULD be able to be critical of the war, and of Bush, and that it NOT be considered a slam against our troops. Why can't someone appreciate and support the troops that are taking the orders given, but not support those orders?



TJR

 

[R 3]

What's there to be critical of? Saddam's out of power, and has no nukes. B*tching about it just means you'd rather have the previous status quo.



JEEZ.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Maybe some would rather see Saddam still in power, crippled with UN sanctions; and our country in less war debt and with almost 3000 fewer soldiers killed. There was a thread previously asking "was it worth it?"



I can't answer that question, because to me, personally, Saddam in power, Saddam out of power, my life 5 years ago, my life today...all pretty much the same...and I think I speak for most Americans.



But then again, for me personally, trillions in war debt, 3000 dead soldiers, again, personally, these things aren't affecting me (not personally).



The closest the Persian Gulf war came to affecting me personally was when I voted "NO" last Tuesday on whether or not the Commonwealth of PA should assume $20B in debt for the PG conflict(s). I voted "No", not because I don't support the conflict, but because I think national defense is a Federal tax line item, not something that should be pushed down to the states, even if in part.



TJR

 

[R 3]

That's a HUGE slap in the face of 9-11 victims.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

R said:

That's a HUGE slap in the face of 9-11 victims.

What is? That's a serious question.



Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9-11. Liberals keep reminding the world of that, and even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Bill V]

Open question: Do people think that Rummy stepping down was his idea, based on the election results? Or that it was Bush's idea, and that he requested it?



I'm honestly not sure, but I'm leaning toward the latter--I think that Rumsfield wouldn't have stepped down if George had said he wanted him to be there. If that's the case, then when George said before the election that he was sticking with Rumsfield, it was a lie. A minor one, no doubt, one that I think everyone can understand, and that no one on either side of the aisle seriously holds against him--but it was still a lie nonetheless.



But if Bush truly wanted him to stay on, and Rummy still decided to step down of his own volition, then the lie didn't occur.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I really don't think that Bush is using him as a scapegoat. I think Rumsfeld sees some tough times and tough questions coming down the road what with the shift in power, and he isn't the kind of guy to be questioned or be apologetic, so he stepped aside.

 

[Eric Pennal]

Wow - I guess y'all support Saddam still being in power w/ nukes, WMD, etc. etc..

I guess you haven't read or seen the news for the past three years. Iraq didn't have nukes or WMDs before the war.



Personally, I think it shows a lack of appreciation for the troops to send them into an avoidable war.