Posted on 11/07/2006 10:04:17 PM PST by meandog
That was a few days ago. Rummy won't last the year.
On foreign policy he is A++, that we know!
If we are so fortunate. God bless Rummy.
Perhaps but the Iraq problems don't belong solely to Rumsfeld.
I believe that during the next three to six months, we're going to see an incredible turn-around in Iraq. Wouldn't it be a shame to have the Democrats take credit for that.
If we capitulate and surrender Rumsfeld, that's exactly what will happen.
Look, you may be right, but my opinion is still "NO DAMNED WAY!"
Rumsfield serves at the pleasure of the President but unless there is some plan beyond hold the course then the GOP is going to get marginalized even more and there is no chance of any reasonable legislation getting passed. The House and Senate GOP members will be so gunshy of supporting the President that they will lay down unless the President decides to do something different, anything.
Our biggest loss was not the House but the Senate! We now have no chance of getting a conservative on the Supreme Court and into other judicial slots. That is where the liberals have always won their advances and now we can no longer reverse the trend.
If Stevens does step down now and even Ginsberg we can't get the type of judges we need on the court to change things as we could have if we controlled the Senate.
We have lost the mindshare with the American people on Iraq. That is pretty clear. We have lost the opportunity to take real action on illegal immigration and now we lose the ability to roll back the use of judges to circumvent the will of the people. I only hope in the end the war in Iraq is worth it.
Going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Bungling the occupation by maintaining support to inept but loyal aides was not.
As much as I hate saying this, Gen Shinseki was right. We needed a lot more troops than we went in with. And that was just the first of many mistakes we should have seen coming.
It's funny how so many of those "pigs" managed to get elected last time around. That said, it's not Rove's fault either. But your argument is faulty.
Rumsfeld stays.
Oh no, it would have been a winner politically though.
Most of the Iraqi populace is happy to have us there. So your initial take on the war is right. They did dance in the streets. They did vote. They are taking control of the military operations. They will control their nation.
I know it's tough to deal with. I get down at times too, but this is going to work out in the long run.
I'm not saying that Rummy isn't a stand up guy, what I'm saying is that he's botched the Iraqi phase of the GWOT and has become a lightening rod for the administration. Heck, even some successful conservative Republicans re-elected here in Virginia tonight (Jo Ann Davis) have called for his head. He should do the right thing and fall on his sword...he was in the Navy and should realize that the captain goes down with his ship, not the admiral!
What exactly has he botched? Additional troops would not help the situation right now.
Which folks who work there, the troops fighting for freedom, or a bunch of desk jockeys? The old garde in the Pentagon does not like Rummy becuase he makes them work their arses off and demands accountability at all levels. His Transformation Plan is brilliant, but people don't like change, especially in comfortable jobs.
KNOCK IT OFF!
One tried, Hillary, and he put her in her place so fast it made your head spin. One of c-spans greatest moments.
I wrote that in email and a fax to the WH last month. Our President needed that tattoo'ed on his hand then, now he's going to waffle another week before - bye, bye Donald. Our President surrounded himself with die hard dummies and those that spoke out and were not listened to, got out. He can only blame himself for not having better vision (and better staff).
Good point! We started falling behind in this engagement long before the number of troops to send in had been decided upon. We started losing when our satellites showed evidence of numerous convoys making the trek across the desert to Syria and we did nothing to find out what was in those trucks. We started losing when we gave the enemy months and months to prepare for our invasion while we went back to the UN for the umpteenth time. We started losing when we didn't make it abundantly clear to Syria and Iran that we would not tolerate interference from them with our mission in Iraq. We started losing when we didn't extract a heavy price from Turkey for going back on its agreement to let us access Iraq by way of their country. Then we continued losing when we couldn't bring ourselves to deal quickly and decisively with the plethora of private armies that started to pop up everywhere. We have simply never employed the techniques that, although not politically correct, go a long way in convincing an enemy that it's in their best interest to cooperate. We could have put a million troops in there, but if they were bound by the same rules of engagement that those who were there were forced to accept nothing would have changed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.