This just in, Donnie is gone as Sec of Defense.
Now maybe we have a chance in Iraq.
Edit: Bush nominates ex-cia cheif Robert Gates to replace him.
If Cheney lets him do his job, perhaps. Apparently, VP Cheney had said prior to the election that regardless of the results they were going to “continue full speed ahead in the same direction.”
Bodo
Good f*cking riddance.
It’s a start.
Wow. Suddenly the Bush Admin aren’t stubbornly arrogant anymore. I wonder why…
About time.
It’s good for PR, but it’s probably not going to change a whole lot on the ground.
Far too little, far too late.
Surely you jest. The remaining players are arrogant too. But he DID take the cake. Where’s my pee on his grave emoticon? Oh, I guess that can wait until he’s dead.
Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
They should have let him sit there - the mistakes that idiot did are nearly impossible to undo:
Let’s see:
- Invade Iraq.
- The above with too few troops.
- Basically fire Iraqi society.
- Mishandling every mishap about Iraq.
You can’t change the first 3. If you add say another 500,000 troops in Iraq, you might get it under control, however I think the US mood is against that now.
Too bad US got an opt-out of the war criminals tribunal - if not Rummy would actually be a great candidate for a little test run before going after Bush.
Anyone check out the Washington Post front page this morning?
hee hee hee
Rummy, arrogant dummy to the end:
"Bob Gates, my congratulations to you on this nomination. My very best wishes. Look forward to working with you in the transition.
Mr. President, thank you for your kind words, and the wholly unexpected opportunity you provided me to serve in the Department of Defense again these past years – six years. It’s been quite a time. It recalls to mind the statement by Winston Churchill, something to the effect that “I have benefitted greatly from criticism, and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof.”
The great respect that I have for your leadership, Mr. President, in this little understood, unfamiliar war, the first war of the 21st century – it is not well-known, it was not well-understood, it is complex for people to comprehend . . . ."
And the Bush-led budget mess will be a toughie too. But the Republicans are great at blaming others for problems they themselves caused, so I’m sure they’ll be calling foul in a couple years when both are still a mess. 
And the Bush-led budget mess will be a toughie too. But the Republicans are great at blaming others for problems they themselves caused, so I’m sure they’ll be calling foul in a couple years when both are still a mess. [/quote]
Oh, forgot that one. The “prolifigate” Democrat Clinton left a budget in surplus and the 30 year T-bond getting phased out - let’s see what has Bush done so far? The biggest bidgetary mess in the history of mankind, one which your descendants will pay for for generations to come.
Shouldn’t Rumsfeld be discussed in the Euthanasia for the Disabled thread?
Good riddance to the arrogant bastard. Better for everyone that U.S. military strategy not be directed by cranky, vindictive Vietnam-era pensioners.
Dragonbones: please find that piss on his grave emoticon. One could always fill up the hole in advance of chucking the old fart in.
Fred: where were you last night? Sulking? Diddums.
Bob
:bravo: That’s pretty damned funny.
Er, I don’t actually have one, but it sounds like something worth making! 
Nope. I fully expected to lose the House and while I am disappointed at losing the Senate, well, I am a confident person and I believe that this will be for the good of all in the long run. The issues are real. Bush has to have the Democrats on board to reduce spending and also reform Social Security. If that is what it takes so much the better. This may, and I repeat may, also get the Democrats to become much more responsible than they have been in the past. Previously, they could make a lot of cheap shots as the opposition with no real stake or responsibility for administration policies. Not any more. Welcome to the party. Again, I have great confidence that key Bush policies are not going to be reversed and if his spending habits are checked, so much the better AND we really do need a united front on Iran. We would never get that with the Republican dominated political power so this may and again I repeat may bring about a more unified force. If it does, hurray!
In the meantime, I congratulate the Democrats on their fine performance but caution those who are not Americans not to expect a huge shift in foreign policy priorities or policies. Bush and his policies after all are not that far off from some of those during the Clinton Era. Have a nice day! As to the Senate, one last comment. Lieberman rejected by his own party and historically close to the Bush administration in its view of the world has been re-elected. HE will be a kingmaker in the Senate and that is good for all of us.
[quote=“spook”]Rummy, arrogant dummy to the end:
"It’s been quite a time. It recalls to mind the statement by Winston Churchill, something to the effect that “I have benefitted greatly from criticism, and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof.”[/quote]
So another lame Churchill / WWII - Bush administration comparison?
Well, what did the American Conservative write about this. A couple of weeks ago:
[quote=“The American Conservative”]
Donald Winston Rumsfeld?
(Well, the Artile’s title is actually “Geroge Winston Bush?” - but it fits nevertheless)
…
But since 9/11, through the hunt for Osama bin Laden (“Wanted: Dead or Alive!”), the search for Iraq’s WMD (“mushroom cloud”), the anticipation of the welcoming of the American “liberators,” and the counterinsurgency in Iraq (“Bring ‘em on”), much of what the Bushies and their neoconservative cheerleaders have been pursuing has given rhetoric a bad name, including the celebration of the many “tipping points” in post-Saddam Mesopotamia, the efforts to help Iraqis “build a democracy,” and the alleged success in “making progress in the march of freedom” in the Greater Middle East and entire universe.
As Churchill expert Lukacs pointed out, the kind of empty rhetoric that disguises a disastrous policy, that involves speaking “grandiloquently” and talking “in general terms,” is certainly not a Churchillian trait.
…[/quote]
Hey - the article even has my favorite Rummy quote where his penchant for schlock novels is highlighted. :bravo:
The following quote though reeks of the same elitarian hubris so long associated with the mindless left.
[quote=“spook”]Rummy, arrogant dummy to the end:
The great respect that I have for your leadership, Mr. President, in this little understood, unfamiliar war, the first war of the 21st century – it is not well-known, it was not well-understood, it is complex for people to comprehend . . . ."[/quote]
[quote]“And these stupid American sheeple neither ever really understood the vast superiority of cummunism either. Stupid rednecks the whole bunch of them. Can’t they just follow some wild theories and wishfull thinking like … I do?”
- quoted from an unnamed pseudo-educated left wing schmuck -[/quote]
Same shit, different pile. Good riddance to both.
Who on forumosa again viewed Rummy as competent?
Sign me up on that for the following reasons.
- He realized the Cold War was over and that we needed more mobile forces.
- He realized that you go to war with the forces that you have. Waiting to build up colonial adminstrators and civil forces including police would have taken years and would have required a long difficult reform and budgetary process.
- He realized that we would not invade and maintain Iraq with 300,000 to 500,000 troops for a long period. Doing so would have required conscription. That would never be accepted.
- He realized that if we relied on only professional forces that really we would be able to stay in Iraq to a large extent almost indefinitely and that it would have less of an influence on public opinion, the very public opinion that proved disastrous in Vietnam.
- He realized that our nation’s safety was more important than catering to “concerns” among groups that would criticize us no matter what we do or did.
- He was a funny man. I liked his nononsense and his biting humor.
On the other side, I can fully understand why many people have criticized him for lack of sufficient planning, for being too insensitive, for being too inflexible. I fully see and understand that and I fully respect the strong criticism as delivered by the Economist, a magazine that I respect very much but… in the grand scheme of things, I have and had a very favorable impression of the man and I value and appreciate his six years of service. Thank you Rumsfeld.
Final verdict. I do agree that for a variety of reasons it was time for him to go, but I wish that the exit would have been one filled with more appreciation and understanding of the vital role that he has played in transforming our military and its missions.
I get that not everyone will agree with me and that many will actively and openly oppose my opinion on this and again, I respect that.
Sign me up on that for the following reasons.
- He realized the Cold War was over and that we needed more mobile forces.
[color=blue]Yes. Good.[/color] - He realized that you go to war with the forces that you have.
[color=blue]But didn’t realize that you go to war with those who attack you, not bystanders.[/color] - Waiting to build up colonial adminstrators and civil forces including police would have taken years and would have required a long difficult reform and budgetary process.
[color=blue]But didn’t realize how much easier it’d be to decapitate the regime then put its organs to work on reconstructing the state.[/color] - He realized that we would not invade and maintain Iraq with 300,000 to 500,000 troops for a long period. Doing so would have required conscription. That would never be accepted.
[color=blue]Instead, he invaded with a force capable of decapitating the regime, but not of controlling spastic extremities. [/color] - He realized that if we relied on only professional forces that really we would be able to stay in Iraq to a large extent almost indefinitely and that it would have less of an influence on public opinion, the very public opinion that proved disastrous in Vietnam.
[color=blue]Forgot to read Sun-tzu, particularly chapters 2 & 3:
[quote=“Sun Tzu: II. WAGING WAR”]
-
Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as
glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day.
Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men. -
When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and
their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. -
Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
-
Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent,
other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue. -
Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
-
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. [/quote]
[quote=“Sun Tzu: III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM”]1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best
thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is
better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire
than to destroy them.
-
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists
in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. -
Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy’s troops without any fighting; he captures their cities
without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.[/quote][/color] -
He realized that our nation’s safety was more important than catering to “concerns” among groups that would criticize us no matter what we do or did.
[color=blue]See above, Chapter 2, part 4.[/color] -
He was a funny man. I liked his nononsense and his biting humor.
[color=blue]Ha ha, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. Ha ha, 3,000 Americans dead. Ha ha, tens of thousands of Americans maimed. Ha ha, where’s Osama?[/color]
I get that not everyone will agree with me and that many will actively and openly oppose my opinion on this and again, I respect that.
[color=blue]He started well. I get that. Everything after 9/11… I don’t get that.[/color][/quote]