×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rumsfeld Stepping Down

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the at-least-no-one-dropped-a-house-on-him dept.

899

macinrack writes to tell us that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of the unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon. Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

899 comments

Sore loser (5, Insightful)

gorehog (534288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16771943)

Sure sure, run away just as we get the chance to ask some real questions.

Seems to me like he's just trying to hide. Cut and run.

Fact is, he'll still have to answer subpeonas.

Re:Sore loser (1, Insightful)

Atlantic Wall (847508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772001)

mod parent up. He will be subpenoaed soon.

Re:Sore loser (1, Insightful)

gorehog (534288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772237)

Thank you. He will have to face subpeonas. If he didnt want this to look like a cowardly political move then he should have stepped down long ago.

Good news, bad news (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16771945)

Good news: Rummy steps down.
Bad news: Replaced by former head of CIA Gates

captcha: eighth

Re:Good news, bad news (1, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772005)

Bill Gates running the Pentagon?! Besides multiple blue screens of death, he can't do any worse.

Re:Good news, bad news (1)

thejrwr (1024073) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772157)

no wait even better! Bill gates makes every one install MSLinux! the amke a virus to distory all GPL'd Code in the world

Good at war, bad at peace (2, Insightful)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 7 years ago | (#16771955)

To be honest, his strategy for initially winning the war was really damn good. He is honestly a man I would want leading out troops in a traditional war. (minus the body armor stupidity...)

He blows massive chunks at the entire "making peace after war" part though, and that is the part that gets your name in the history books....

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (1)

rblancarte (213492) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772017)

While I agree with you I will say this:

- should there have been a war?
- winning the war was only part 1, shouldn't part 2, preparing Iraq for their own independence be planned for too?

Of course, #2 of mine is pretty much just what you said, so I agree.

RonB

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (-1, Troll)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772351)

- should there have been a war?

That's a loaded question though, because the 'obvious' answer is different now than it was 6.5 years ago.

Rumsfeld takes a lot of undeserved flak though, mostly because he usually tells it like it is even when how it is isn't what people wish they were hearing. People are used to hearing from politicians who sum everything up in ten catchy words after applying sufficient spin to make themselves look good. Rumsfeld always got stuck in a position where he had to present a nuanced situation, and his decision based on that situation, without being able to give people all of the (classified) facts that led him to a decision that may be the best decision at the time, but isn't necessarily a popular one.

What is unfortunate that, more than anything else, he is being forced to leave simply to avoid unjustified investigations that would prevent him from doing his job.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772055)

That strategy being bomb key locations (and some not-so-key ones just to be safe), then declare victory? I've seen Risk games with more strategy than that. WWII had strategy, this was barely practice for a real war.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (1)

ericdano (113424) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772069)

Agreed. I think Rummy hoped the Iraq people would have stood up and participated sooner than they have.

In all, Rummy did pretty good except for the end. He has lasted quite a while compared to other Defense Secs.....

Which war are you talking about? (5, Insightful)

Alphager (957739) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772125)

Which war did Rumsfeld help win? Afghanistan? The Taliban are retaking cities everyday. Iraq? You know that more US soldiers died after the declaration of "victory" than during the so called "war" ?

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (4, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772131)

Militaries aren't designed for nation building.

they are designed to kill

thus the crux of the entire problem.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (4, Insightful)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772329)

Militaries aren't designed for nation building. they are designed to kill thus the crux of the entire problem.

Which is what nobody seems to get nowadays. Does anyone think that had someone else been in charge they would have brought western style democracy to Iraq? Or has anyone woke up to the reality that you can't shove democracy down the throat of people who want Sharia?

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (5, Insightful)

antv (1425) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772145)

To be honest, his strategy for initially winning the war was really damn good. He is honestly a man I would want leading out troops in a traditional war. (minus the body armor stupidity...)


His strategy for war was mediocre at best. Rumsfeld was lucky enough to fight a war against a country 10 times smallert than USA (25 mil vs 300 mil population), with 20 times less money, 50 smaller army and weapons from 1980. In a traditional war you want competent people like Gen. Zinni and Gen. Shinseki, who were fired by Rumsfeld for, well, accurately predicting current disaster in Iraq.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (1)

dc29A (636871) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772201)

To be honest, his strategy for initially winning the war was really damn good. He is honestly a man I would want leading out troops in a traditional war. (minus the body armor stupidity...)

It requires damn good strategy for a Ferrari to beat a good ole' Lada in a car race. Was it really great strategy or simply pure brute force? Didn't we see in 1991 how shitty Iraq's army was vs the coalition? I wouldn't say his strategy was really good when it relied on far superior armaments.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772239)

I don't think anybody would argue that Rumsfeld had a good plan for the invasion and take over of Iraq. But people disagree with the strategy for after the Iraqi army had been defeated and Saddam Huessin was removed from power. To some, there just wasn't much of strategy and planning. It reminds me of a quote I read once:

Amateurs worry about strategy. Dilettantes worry about tactics. Professionals worry about logistics.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (2, Interesting)

Mushdot (943219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772247)

Unfortunately this wasn't a 'traditional' war, in fact it wasn't really a war in my opinion.

I can't comment on Rumsfelds battlefield acumen in other conflicts, but it saddens me to think that this man will step down and probably get another high profile job, write his memoirs etc while leaving the whole Iraq mess behind for someone else to clear up.

not so fast (1)

davido42 (956948) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772273)

IIRC, over the objections of the military, Rumsfeld went ahead with the Iraqi invasion with a force much smaller than what was needed to secure the country. There were plenty of troops to drive out Iraqi troops, but not enough to also guard the HUGE explosives cache [newsfrombabylon.com], 380 tons of goodies, not to mention to secure cities from looting and wanton destruction. Also, much if not most success should be attributed to the rest of the military, not the guy responsible for setting policy at the top.

Your mileage may vary.

http://www.bitworksmusic.com/ [bitworksmusic.com]

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (4, Insightful)

StupidHelpDeskGuy (636955) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772301)

You can not initially win a war. You either win or you lose. He and his cronies started a war that can not be won. What is worse, is that he's been planning this since the 80's.

Mr. Rumsfield and Mr. Bush started a war in Iraq for the wrong reason. What is worse is that in doing so, Rumsfield sought evidence to make his case, as oppossed to making his case around the evidence. Mr. Rumsfields was is, was, and will continue to be a disaster. For you to claim otherwise is absurd.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772341)

"his strategy for initially winning the war was really damn good"

You mean bombing power stations, roads, bridges and killing women and children to 'liberate' them? yeah... great strategy there!

Fortunately, there are more humane people who consider Rummy a war criminal and hence he has to call ahead in Germany and other places to confirm that he will not be arrested, tried as a criminal and probably found guilty of massive war crimes before he can ever set foot in that country.

Just like the Israeli 'leaders' have to call ahead even in Britain and often they cannot even make the trip because of the possibility of being arrested on charges of crimes against humanity.

Only in the midst of barbarians can someone like Rumsfeld be in a position of power...

You have to be kidding or ignorant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772365)

Rumsfield had little to do with the actual planning of the intial attack. That was the US of A military with superior power doing what they were trained to do. All in all, Rumsfield did not have an opportunity to mess it up. The problem came in when, a person with NO military, strategy, or even spy training or talent decided that HE knew best. On the next admin more of this will come out (bush is covering up everything at this time). At that time, hopefully, a number of people such as Rumsfield will do time.

Re:Good at war, bad at peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772387)

You mean his strategy for winning a war against an enemy we already defeated 10 years ago and ran into the ground with economic sanctions with _the_ most advanced military might in the world? A two year old could have done that. Occupation WAS the war, and we failed that, miserably.

Speedy Press (1, Interesting)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16771961)

This hit the frontpage of reddit, slashdot and digg all within 20 minutes of it being announced. Fastest I've ever seen.

Eitherway, this had to happen though and probably would have happened if the Democrats hadn't won the house.

Re:Speedy Press (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16771995)

Eitherway, this had to happen though and probably would have happened if the Democrats hadn't won the house.

If he, and Cheney had done this BEFORE the election, the dems might not have won so big.

Re:Speedy Press (2, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772181)

This only happend because the Democrats won the house. Rumsfeld offered his resignation to the President at least 2 times in the past, and was rejected.

This is just playing politics. It's just like Pelosi stating she won't start any impeachment. Each party must concede something to get any support from the opposite party. Dems say they won't impeach and Bush gives up Rumsfeld. These people care more about their political games than actually taking a stand on something.

Re:Speedy Press (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772337)

Eitherway, this had to happen though and probably would have happened if the Democrats hadn't won the house.

I don't agree. I am convinced it happened only because the Democrats won control of the House (and maybe the Senate, but we don't know as I write this). I think Bush cut a secret deal with the Democratic leadership that in exchange for Rumsfield's resignation, the Democrats won't persue impeachment charges against Bush and Cheney over Iraq. Rumsfield's resignation a few days ago could have made a difference in the election and I can't believe that Rove and company didn't know that. No, this was done only after the election results were in as a way to get something from the incoming Democratic leadership.

The army you have... (4, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16771965)

"Sorry, Don, you go to the polls with the voters you have. They're not the voters you might want or wish to have at a later time."
- Dubya

Smile for the camera (3, Interesting)

shrubya (570356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772325)

It took a bit longer than anyone would have guessed, but at long last everyone in this photo [google.com] has retired. I bet there will be some Kurdish street parties tonight.

Take about getting what you want (0, Flamebait)

KingCZAR (980137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16771971)

The democrats just keep getting what they want. I wonder if thats really a good thing?

Re:Take about getting what you want (2, Funny)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772123)

Well, according to trickle-down theory, I should be getting my own loose-moral intern any day now!

Wow, talk about bad timing (4, Insightful)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16771973)

This has to be some of the worst timing for any policy decision. If only he would have resigned a few days ago (and Bush not said he was going to stick around to the end), the Republicans would have had a real chance.

Sure, he may not have specifically offered until today, but he has offered his resignation at least twice in the past ... last week would have been the perfect time to finally accept his prior offers and for Bush to say "hey, we've made some mistakes in Iraq, it's time we all sit down together and figure out how to do it right" instead of his continued stubborn insistence on staying the course and doing things his way.

Re:Wow, talk about bad timing (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772053)

Nah, Bush is too high strung to do that. In his eyes it would be a sign of weakness to give into the public's demand for him to step down. It would be like him "cutting and running" out of Iraq when everyone in the US started complaining telling him to come up with a new plan, his response is of course, no stay the course, that's how you win!

He can't be seen has Flip Flopping, right?

Re:Wow, talk about bad timing (3, Insightful)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772063)

Oh, it's better than that. Bush said last week that no matter what happens, Rumsfeld would stay on until the end of his term (in 2008). Today was a huge flip-flop.

Re:Wow, talk about bad timing (3, Informative)

IDontAgreeWithYou (829067) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772355)

He actually said that he would not ask Rumsfeld to step down and that Rumsfeld would have the job as long as he wanted it, but nice try though.

Re:Wow, talk about bad timing (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772169)

> If only he would have resigned a few days ago (and Bush not said he was going to stick around to the end), the Republicans would have had a real chance.

I agree. Accepting Rummy's resignation would have been viewed as a political move by the extremists on both the Left and the Right - but none of those voters were going to change their minds anyway. As for the murky middle, it might have swayed the 0.1-0.2% needed to retain control of the Senate.

Then again, this campaign season was all kinds of fucked up. If John "stuck in Iraq" Kerry can campaign for the Republicans, then why can't Karl "issue a press release saying Rummy will serve until 2008" Rove swing things for the Democrats?

Bill Gates?! Defense Secretary? (4, Funny)

mekkab (133181) | more than 7 years ago | (#16771977)

Bringing new meaning to the (Red White and) Blue Screen of Death!

Oh wait, what? Bob Gates?

/Nevermind, then.

Thanks a lot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16771979)

nt

Bye Rumsfeld... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16771981)

don't let the door hit you on the way out...

...don't let the door hit you on the way out... (1)

SonicSpike (242293) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772389)

...because I don't want ASS PRINTS ON MY DOOR!

(obligatory Futurama quote)

Wow, what a day! (5, Funny)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16771983)

I, for one, welcome anyone else that might replace him.

Fuck, at this point, I could just about support Kissinger!

Re:Wow, what a day! (1)

chowdy (992689) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772105)

I thought you had said: "Fuck, at this point, I could just about support a Klingon!"

Re:Wow, what a day! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772149)

Kissinger? I don't even know 'er!

Sorry, couldn't help it.

Direct Quote? (1)

mrwhite (96965) | more than 7 years ago | (#16771985)

Glad someone wrote in to quote the headline on CNN.com: "President Bush announced today that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, is stepping down. Bush said he is nominating former CIA chief Robert Gates, who headed that agency from 1991 until 1993, to become the next secretary of defense." I feel like I read something worthwhile.

Fox news coverage was great (5, Funny)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16771991)

I happened to catch Fox News about 5 minutes before Bush's announcement began. They showed one of teh Fox News corrospondents standing outside the White House, talking about the impending announcement. If you listened really carefully, you could hear people in the background chanting "Na-na-nahh-na, na-na-nahh-na, hey, hey, hey...goodbye"

Re:Fox news coverage was great (1)

curtisk (191737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772045)

I wish I could've seen that, I'm sure it'll be on youtube, but to see it live! LOL

Re:Fox news coverage was great (4, Funny)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772217)

If you listened really carefully, you could hear people in the background chanting "Na-na-nahh-na, na-na-nahh-na, hey, hey, hey...goodbye"

That ws just Kelly Ripa getting rid of a stain with her Tide stick.

Re:Fox news coverage was great (5, Funny)

myth24601 (893486) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772343)

I happened to catch Fox News about 5 minutes before Bush's announcement began. They showed one of teh Fox News corrospondents standing outside the White House, talking about the impending announcement. If you listened really carefully, you could hear people in the background chanting "Na-na-nahh-na, na-na-nahh-na, hey, hey, hey...goodbye"


Those were the other White House corespondants.

Election is over kids (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772003)

There are plenty of political websites for you to get your rocks off on.
Lets stick with technology related news.

Re:Election is over kids (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772275)

There are plenty of political websites for you to get your rocks off on. Lets stick with technology related news.
Sure. Because political news can never be a subset of "News for Nerds"? You don't have to view the discussion of any article, if it bothers you, why not just ignore it?

And I'll say that the general discussion on political topics on slashdot is very different from the discussion on political sites... and I much prefer the discussion here. At least the rabid partisans on slashdot come from all slants.

Finally, if you are logged in, go to "preferences" select "home page" and change how the different sections are prioritized... if you want, you can opt never to see a "politics" article again.

Good timing (4, Interesting)

adam613 (449819) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772009)

Rumsfeld's resignation was timed such that Bush can force the nomination of his replacement through a Republican Senate. If he'd waited much longer, the Senate would be controlled by the Democrats and Bush might actually have to pick someone good.

Re:Good timing (1, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772085)

Ahem. It hasn't been decided whether the Republicans still control the Senate. Two races are so close that there will be a recount and that will take weeks.

Re:Good timing (3, Insightful)

Kevin DeGraaf (220791) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772235)

First, Montana has already been decided in favor of the Democrat.

Second, he was talking about confirming the new nominee (Bob Gates) during the lame-duck period of the existing 55-44-1 Senate.

Re:Good timing (-1)

tjw (27390) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772147)

Cabinet posts do not require any confirmation.

Re:Good timing (3, Informative)

Kevin DeGraaf (220791) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772311)

Who the hell modded this insightful? Did you do any fact-checking whatsoever?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet [wikipedia.org]

"Cabinet officers are nominated by the President and then presented to the United States Senate for confirmation or rejection. If approved, they are sworn in, receive the title 'Secretary', and begin their duties."

Re:Good timing (1)

eli pabst (948845) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772391)

Are you sure? I seem to remember that they did and wikipedia [wikipedia.org] would agree: "Cabinet officers are nominated by the President and then presented to the United States Senate for confirmation or rejection."

About time... (1)

TheSacrificialFly (124096) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772013)

Some things the good old boys network can't prevent. I'm sure he's in for a cushy life now, even though they couldn't save him there'll be board memberships and "consulting" jobs flowing in for the rest of his life.

Slashdot... (-1, Flamebait)

moehoward (668736) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772027)


News for liberals. Stuff that makes snot-nosed college kids think they know what is going on in the world.

Really, now you are just being too obvious about it.

Re:Slashdot... (1)

KingCZAR (980137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772137)

You think this because of a story they posted? The remarks are biased, not the report BTW: That is the worst stereo-type I have heard throughout this whole midterm

Re:Slashdot... (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772151)

So, uh, wait a second. You're saying that Slashdot should report that Rumsfeld HASN'T stepped down?

I know you might want it to be so, but facts are not a partisan matter.

Re:Slashdot... (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772295)

Please, that is the least insightful post under this entire thread - pure flamebait.

In fact, there are tons of conservatives here on Slashdot. Just not very many social conservatives or authoritarians. Most of them are of a more libertarian bent.

In any case, I know plenty of conservatives who think it was way past time for Rumsfeld to go. Including my friend who worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority and US Embassy in Iraq for a year and a half (and just went back over there working as a liaison for the British government).

I'm a moderate Democrat, but I'll trust my friend's judgment on Rumsfeld over your flamebait any day.

Re:Slashdot... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772333)

Back to foxnews.com with you -- oh crap, it's on there too!

Re:Slashdot... (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772369)

News for non-retards. Stuff that matters to intelligent, rational people...like non-NeoCons.

Finally... (1)

wb8wsf (106309) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772029)

This has certainly been an interesting 24 hours. I wonder if some
of the members of our current administration have heard the knock
of reality on the door. I can only hope so.

Smart move (2, Insightful)

RichPowers (998637) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772041)

After the Army Times called for Rumsfeld to step down, the White House could no longer ignore criticisms of the SecDef. That, and a Democratic Congress could very well "blackmail" the White House with legislative stoppages until Rumsfeld resigns. Rumsfeld was good at waging the initial war, but was simply unable to adapt to the insurgency or maintaining an extended peace.

Well, that didn't take long (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772049)

I knew the GOP would offer up a sacrifical lamb for their thrashing yesterday, but damn - that was fast.

Re:Well, that didn't take long (2, Interesting)

Moofie (22272) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772219)

That was my first thought. He was demoted from SecDef to scapegoat.

Now somebody go do the same thing with Gonzalez.

Rummy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772057)

The timing says everything. With the potential for his agenda to be advanced now gone, he cuts and runs. A good man would have stayed on to finish the job properly no matter how stressful. Afterall, we were led to believe that the war was at least partly for the benefit of the Iraqi people, who are clearly still suffering. However this poor excuse for a man failed to give even a cursory look to the troubled history of Iraq and the enormous problems an invasion would unleash. Either that or this is all very intentional... divide and conquer, and everything.

A little attribution please (1)

flink (18449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772065)

Just a nit, but the OP should be quoting the AP piece, not attributing it to mainrack:

By David Espo and Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writers | November 8, 2006

WASHINGTON --Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon, Republican officials said Wednesday.
Article Tools

Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/artic les/2006/11/08/gop_says_rumsfeld_stepping_down/ [boston.com]

At this point, ... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772083)

I seriously doubt that this will make any difference. The only chance that Iraq has of being solved without it falling to Al Qaeda (or Iran), would be for us to put in 500-600K troops. And if W. was not bright enough to put in 250K troops AND rebuild the nation quickly, then I seriously doubt that he has enough character or intelligence to do what is right, now.
 
All in all, this will go down as the textbook way to not fight a war in American military schooling (and probably others).

Re:At this point, ... (1)

Octorian (14086) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772309)

Hmm... I thought the Vietnam conflict was the textbook example of how not to fight a war. (or why Politicians should stay the hell away from trying to micromanage the military)

Finally (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772087)

Its astonishing how you can ignore historical experience, common sense and repeatedly be so utterly wrong and yet not get fired when you are one of Georges buddies.

A quick glance at some of the stuff Donald came out with makes you seriously question his mental state.

PNAC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772091)

Who knew the New American Century was actually only six years long?

Re:PNAC (4, Insightful)

antv (1425) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772305)

Who knew the New American Century was actually only six years long?


Well, us American voters kinda prefer the Old American Century, with Habeus Corpus and without torture. Don't you ?

The sad thing is... (5, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772163)

This happens only after Republican blood was spilled in the election. The blood of thousands of soldiers spilled on the battlefield didn't count for squat.

Re:The sad thing is... (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772243)

You and i have red blood. Senators and Congressmen have blue.
Who do you think is more important? You and me or the Senator who just lost a million dollars???
This is US man !!!

Suggested Department Name Change (3, Interesting)

mirio (225059) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772189)

In order to assign more meaningful names to the agencies of the federal government, I make a motion that the Dept. of Defense be called the Dept. of Offense and the Dept. of Homeland Security be called the Dept. of Defense.

In all seriousness, I'm not sure that this new guy is going to be any better. Why does a former CIA man make a better Secretary than..hmm...I dunno....a former GENERAL?

WOOO HOOO!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772191)

WOOOOO HOOOOO!!!!!

Rumsfeld is a stooge just like Bush (4, Insightful)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772195)

The real menace within the DOD is Paul Wolfowitz [wikipedia.org], the architect of all of the USA's global imperialist schemes since at least the Carter years.

Unfortunately, last year someone decided he was of better use as president of the World Bank than Deputy Secretary of Defense.

He should never have been SoD (5, Interesting)

caseih (160668) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772203)

I read recently that simulations done under the Clinton administration found that an invasion of Iraq and the subsequent "nation-building" would requite sustained troop levels of 400,000. Rumsfeld, completely lacking any understanding of the middle east, the culture, and peoples, figured we can do it on the cheap. Alas it tis not so. Kind of reminds me of when Brutus assasinated Caesar, he figured the people would be happy and cheer him. I honestly think Rumsfeld thought the Iraqi people would support him as Brutus thought.

Now we're paying the price. And much more than just troop loss (which is actually quite minimal, compared to other world conflicts, like, say WWII).

Unpopular War? (1)

ej0c (320280) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772207)

As opposed to which popular war?

Gimme a break. Go back and learn something about strategy, and try to write a sentence.

waah waah waah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772225)

waah waah!

Buther of Baghdad is out.

Goodbye Political Hack (1)

kafka47 (801886) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772251)

Being "tough and ruthless" in a democracy basically means you lie, cheat and steal. Rummy had all these qualities. Never having seen a day of combat in his life, despite being in the Navy, he goes on to... become the architect of an invasion?

He's been described as the "biggest obstacle in the fight on terrorism", despite his lies and his approval of torture. Maybe real success would tear into his oil or weapons profiteering (courtesy of Bechtel and its lucrative Iraq reconstruction projects, its ties to the bin ladens, etc. etc.). Or his fighting the supposed pandemic of bird-flu with his association with Gilead Sciences (a pharmeceutical that just happens to have a treatment).

I hope to never see his smug face on the news again.

/K

Saddam (4, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772289)

I guess he can go and shake hands with Saddam Hussein one more time. "We had a lot of fun times, huh? Too bad you used our gas on civilians. Perhaps if it'd be Palestinian civilians you were killing with our hardware you might have got away with it..."

fBir5t (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772297)

Believe their TCP/IP stack has MOVIE [imdb.com]

Ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16772327)

Suck it, Dems

Why settle for hamburger when you can have steak? (1)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772349)

Why go for Bush Senior's man, when you could go for Henry Kissinger? He's the right man for our time, again.

(Well, I think it's funny.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...