Posted on 11/08/2006 2:39:24 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
-SNIP-
But a source told NBC News’ military analyst Bill Arkin that prior to the election, Vice President Dick Cheney argued with other politicians over whether Rumsfeld should stay. White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and others said Rumsfeld should be removed, the source said. Both sides agreed the decision would be made after the election, when Bush would make the final call based on how Republicans did.
According to the source, Bush agreed Rumsfeld should be removed after seeing election results favoring Democrats. Cheney then lost another argument, protesting Gates’ nomination as Rumsfeld’s replacement.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
From the very start I thought he was setting the wrong tone. Those pardons of Clinton's should have been a great place to start. The man was a criminal and once out of office he should have been prosecuted. I say this for several reason.
The first is the obvious. Crooks need to be brought to justice, and the higher up the totem they go, the more important it is that they are. The second reason, is that Clinton should have been discredited, so his opportunity to speak for the nation would have been utterly destroyed. Third, his ability to trash Bush would have been destroyed as well. Fourth, his ability to stump for candidates would have been destroyed. Fifth, his wife would have been harmed in the process. Sixth, the Democrats would have been put on notice that our team came to play hardball. This would have minimized their ability to trash Bush inceasantly, without response.
As you stated, we tried to play nice. Hey, with the next door neighbor girl, that's an admirable goal. With the jackels who favor policies that help our terrorist adversaries and harm our nation, it's idiotic. Some of those folks wouldn't even address the President by his title, yet he tried to be civil. Damn it, you don't play civil with idiots. Bush should have cuffed them up side the head verbally.
When and if we get this straightened out in my lifetime, I hope our team comes to play. Dole submarined Gingrich. Gingrich resigned. Hastert the the ghost took over. Frist came along after Lott and I'll be damned if he had a clue.
Look Bush, Hastert and Frist may be decent people, but they are not hard ball driving people. I know some people will stop by to disagree, but we just weren't in the same league with the Carvilles, the Pelosis, the Reeds... they kicked our ass.
Yes they are vampiristic blood suckers, but at least they had a game plan. The left harped on the war. They harped on other things as well. And if a Democrat page was stopped on the street, he knew what the days talking points were. Our team thought 'Well duh' were the talking points more often than not. What's up with that?
We need a central information office that tells our team what the important talking points are, and they should get those out before anything else, every damned time.
As for the McStain squad, they should be given restroom cleanup and trash removal appointments. Frankly if McCain were to change to a Democrat, it would be one of our greatest accomplishments in a decade. When we gain the majority again, I want the team on the same page. The hog-dogs can go pound sand. McStain, you're fired.
Thanks for the post.
"There are a lot of active duty that have spoken out against what has been happening at DoD under Rumsfeld these last two years. Before then I never heard a thing."
New kind of war demands new kind of military. You get there by Transformation.
Old, entrenched status quo folks in DoD would likely RESIST Rummy's change; hence would do as you say, speak out.
But if you want a get along, go along kind of Defense establishment, Rummy wasn't the guy.
If you want to fight new wars with an olde military, Rummy wasn't your guy.
Having said that, he has probably lived through his usefulness. Iraq has gone on for too long, for the voters.
Neither Bush or Rummy could paint a picture about the end of it. Hence he's got to go. The new guy is on Baker's committee.
Together with Bush, they will fashion an end game. If I had to bet on successful civil democracy by arab muslims, I'd bet against it.
Bush and Rummy bet on it. Probably less than 50/50 after we leave, that democracy will last.
You know, I've never bashed Bush. I didn't bash him over the Harriet Miers issue. I didn't bash him over the immigration issue. I've been pretty die-hard in my support of him.
But not for this.
If Rumsfeld should be removed, he should only be removed based on his ability to do the job. Is the situation in Iraq better with Rumsfeld gone? No. Will Bush garner favor with the American people by removing Rumsfeld? No. Will Bush make inroads with the Democrats by removing Rumsfled? HELL NO!
This is craven and cowardly sell-out.
So let me write the words I never thought I'd write.
Scr*w you Bush.
ROVE remains the best political strategist in a generation. But you can't make lemonade from lemons, unless you have SUGAR, WATER, and a CONTAINER. Unfortunately, pride comes before a fall, and many of the lemons ROVE was tasked with assisting long ago ate the sugar, spilled the water, and threw the container at the windows!
Lee Hamilton may be called a good man or a statesman by many but not by me. He was my congressman for what seemed like a hundred years. He is as phoney as they come.
yep!! that is something that ran through my mind too...Bush should have NEVER tampered with Rummy. That is angering the base even more.
I certainly don't disagree with you. I have never understood why he was promoted by the Dims as a "statesman" and why he was accepted similarly by the GOP. I have always viewed such people, from either party, as knowing a lot more about everyone on both sides of the aisle, than they know about anything else.
"Bush should have NEVER tampered with Rummy. That is angering the base even more."
I thought the election was pretty clearly the proof that Bush doesn't have a base any longer. And you're right, the Rumsfeld decision was self mutilation.
I would have stuck with him as well. Doesn't anyone get it? The lies from the left that have been broadcast 24/7 is the real problem here!
I noticed a change when the Air Force Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Myers retired and the Marine Corps General took over. Rumsfeld seemed much more relaxed with him then he does today. General Myers from everyone I have talked with in the AF and Navy channels seemed to have a much better grip on what was going on in the Pentagon. He was one of the neatest Generals we have had in the Air Force and one of the best liked. He was able to reach across the services but since he left the AF and Navy have been left out and new weapons systems put on hold or take off the board.
The AF tanker deal is a good example. We are still waiting for approval for more tankers as our tanker fleet is shrinking by the day because the tankers are flat out too old. The new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Rumsfeld wanted them replaced with smaller tankers but a B-52 flying around the globe needs a large tanker not some small tanker. Also during the BRAC, Rumsfeld and his staff used flawed methodology which resulted in the BRAC members removing three bases from the list because of incompetence of the Pentagon. Rumsfeld wouldn't listen to the AF Chief of Staff.
The leakers were allowed to continue without a full investigation as well.
Nixon had done illegal things (like obstruction of justice) and could have been prosecuted if Ford had not given him a pardon, whereas Bush would have nothing to fear legally as a private citizen. What will Charlie Rangel's articles of impeachment look like anyway? "Lying" about weapons of mass destruction? Signing the PATRIOT Act? Not preventing the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Listening in on terrorists' conversations?
All charges that might thrill the Democratic base, and might even be adopted by a Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee, but is flimsier than the case against Andrew Johnson from a legal standpoint.
The 'Rats just need to be patient. When Hillary is President, she'll have Bush extradited to the Hague to stand trial as a war criminal.
The dems attacking Bush is simply a means to an end. Bush is actually liberal on some issues but it doesn't matter. They used "Hate Bush" as a way to get the House and maybe the Senate. I'm not sure impeachment helps them solidify their gains in next election cycle and win the Presidency. But that is what we should watch for. They will take whatever positions and actions necessary to help them get more power. They need more power than they have now to really get their agenda through.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" pretty much covers anything that can garner a majority of votes in the House of Representatives. As far as putting pressure on the GOP, all it would take is an all-out PR offensive by the democrats and the media to herd enough of the public into supporting impeachment so that elected Republicans feel that they're putting their seats at risk by standing behind their President and VP, and in the true spineless, quivering form they've shown for the past six years, they'll run screaming for the tall grass.
What will Charlie Rangel's articles of impeachment look like anyway? "Lying" about weapons of mass destruction? Signing the PATRIOT Act? Not preventing the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Listening in on terrorists' conversations?
It would be John Conyers' articles of impeachment, and they're already drawn up. Of course the "charges" are crap, but do you really think anyone in the democrat party or the media cares about that? They want Bush gone now - they don't want to wait two years to see him in the dock at the Hague. And by the time the left finishes reporting on Conyers' "charges", they'll have the public believing that Watergate was the equivalent of a jaywalking ticket in comparison.
People, stop this. The country is conservative and voted that way in 2004.
Stop this imagining that some ideological straying causes problems and look at the numbers that have been given to you. The Exit Polls Were Right. They were very close. And they asked the question . . . What one issue was most important to you in how you voted?
It wasn't abortion, it wasn't immigration, it wasn't the economy AND IT WASN'T IRAQ!!!
It was corruption and scandals.
Devote your energies not to philosophical introspection but to the research required to find just which Dems took seats in red districts. Then make damn sure we put a squeaky clean opponent in front of him or her -- and we retake Congress immediately.
Spend two years fighting over being too conservative or not conservative enough and you squander the tactical advantage of a conservative country. No party change is needed. Only eliminate of corruption is needed.
The Kurds deserve better. There are some decent Arab Iraqis, but not enough, it appears, to make it work.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are just trying to relive their victory in the Vietnam War. If the terrorists win in Iraq, they win. Just like 1975 all over again.
yep!! that is something that ran through my mind too...Bush should have NEVER tampered with Rummy. That is angering the base even more.
Hmmm, so when was the constitution changed to make the house the body that runs the senate confirmations?
I think there is a method to their madness. I think Rummy is leaving because he wants to, I think the appointment of a CIA man who had dealings with the Iran/Contra is the perfect person for the next phase of the WOT, and I think the history books will be very, very kind to both Dubya AND Rummy.
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.