Rumsfeld Resigns

[Zero]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_resigns

Not too much of a surprise, considering election results and pressure already having been built against him prior to Nov 7th.

[Kaioshin_Sama]

Finally! It's clear he would have been forced out anyway at this point even if he hadn't stepped down.

[Zelkiiro]

Yay! A new figurehead!

[laborpilot86]

He didn't resign, he was taken out to the woodshed and sacrificed to the political gods

[f1rst children]

He didn't resign, he was taken out to the woodshed and sacrificed to the political gods

If by that you mean he left public service so he can become a highly-paid consultant and lobbyist for a defense contractor where he can use his contacts within the Department of Defense to broker fat, multi-billion dollar blind contracts while also getting $100,000 every time he gives a speech, then yes - he was "sacrificed."

That's probably what Rumsfeld wanted when he first offered to resign back in 2004 when the Abu Grahib story broke, but Bush wouldn't accept his resignation.

[Ghostmaster]

Get out the confetti and balloons!:thewave:

[Rence]

If by that you mean he left public service so he can become a highly-paid consultant and lobbyist for a defense contractor where he can use his contacts within the Department of Defense to broker fat, multi-billion dollar blind contracts while also getting $100,000 every time he gives a speech, then yes - he was "sacrificed."

That's probably what Rumsfeld wanted when he first offered to resign back in 2004 when the Abu Grahib story broke, but Bush wouldn't accept his resignation.

Well, I might remind you that just a week before his resignation, at Democratic calls for his resignation, George W. Bush said that he thought Rumsfeld was doing a great job and that he would not ask him to resign.

The real question is why did he resign when he did? Was he trying to screw the Republicans? Ten bucks says if he had resigned pre-election day that the Dems wouldn't have gotten as many votes. Did Bush actually ask him to resign, within 10 days of saying publicly that he wanted him to stay? Who knows.

[gdavall2003]

Can anyone say 'scapegoat'?

[Rence]

Can anyone say 'scapegoat'?

Eh, it's not like he had nothing to do with it. I wouldn't say it was his war, but as Secretary of Defense, he had a couple of options:

1) Resign 3 and a half years ago, when talk of the war was beginning in defiance of it
2) Actually convince the President not to do anything so stupid.

He's done just as bad of a job with the war as the President has.

[Ojisan]

wtf, Rence

[laborpilot86]

Rumsfeld would have stayed if the GOP held on to it's majority, but they didn't and Rummy was sacrificed



P.S I don't think Bush a Rove thought they were going to lose as badly as they did to the Democrats. Thet seemed oddly overconfident before Election day

[Agawa]

Eh, it's not like he had nothing to do with it. I wouldn't say it was his war, but as Secretary of Defense, he had a couple of options:

1) Resign 3 and a half years ago, when talk of the war was beginning in defiance of it
2) Actually convince the President not to do anything so stupid.

He's done just as bad of a job with the war as the President has.
Both of your statements can be true. From what I watched on CNN,they were implying that the war itself was a good idea but Big Bad Ol' Rumsfield screwed up. Even if he did screw up, there are certainly others responsible, and my first thought was certainly scapegoat.

[Blue Audio]

Don't watch CNN. Or Fox News for that matter.

Today's news is so biased, it's not worth your time.

[Agawa]

Don't watch CNN. Or Fox News for that matter.

Today's news is so biased, it's not worth your time.

Yes, but bias can be a good indication of what's going on, as my example. As long as you use multiple news sources and keep a critical mind, there's nothing wrong with it. Heck, there's nothing wrong with it anyway, I just happen to dislike those stations.

[Rence]

[/QUOTE]Yes, but bias can be a good indication of what's going on, as my example. As long as you use multiple news sources and keep a critical mind, there's nothing wrong with it. Heck, there's nothing wrong with it anyway, I just happen to dislike those stations.

Not that print media isn't biased, but TV news, especially the 24 hour news channels, all lean to one side or another rather clearly. Reading multiple newspapers and making sure to take nothing at face value is quite important in getting your news. Mutltiple sources are key, just as you said.

I was watching CNN on election night and there were times when I couldn't even believe the bias I could notice. Their ability to project Democrat winners with <1% of precints reporting is amazing, and the great skill of asking leading questions to the Republican correspondents is spectacular.

[M.Baka]

"Down With The Beast-Up With Someone Even Scarier"