Donald Rumsfeld has stepped down as Secretary of Defense and will be replaced by former CIA Director Gates.
This just in from CNN:Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down, sources tell CNN.No doubt pressured by yesterday's dramatic swing in the balance of power, sources have told CNN that embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, will resign. Fox News also confirmed the report but said Rumsfeld gave no prior indication or reason for his departure. The Fox article said Eric Ruff, the Pentagon press secretary, met with him today and was given no indication of his intentions.…
Article comments
26 - MCH
"Well, JR. Perhaps he could use Ted Kennedy's liver. From what I understand it's swollen to quite a large size and it's as hard as a rock."
- Dave Nalle
Or maybe they could use one of the bullet-proof windows from the glass house of your fortified compound.
27 - Dave Nalle
Hey, bullet proof windows is a great idea. I'll put it on the list right below the moat and malay gates.
Dave
28 - Baronius
Q - I don't believe that Rumsfeld was "blindly" loyal. I've got a lot of respect for the man and his accomplishments. Deano's observations about restructuring (in comment #6) are apt. Rumsfeld stood up to the military establishment, which is sometimes the right thing for a Defense Secretary to do.
As for the conduct of the war, I don't fault Rumsfeld. But who cares what I think: the troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have high praise for him and the work they've accomplished. The most significant policy mistake, the dismantling of the Iraqi military, is on Bremer.
Powell ran the State Department like something out of "Mean Girls". He and his giggly Joint Chiefs would say nasty things about Bush behind his back. You mentioned the UN speech. Powell has subsequently said - no, not actually said, but it appeared in print anyway - that he didn't believe what he was saying. If that's true, he should have quit. If it's not true, he shouldn't have said it. Back to my original point, the only question in Powell's mind is "how does this make me look?". That's not the way Rumsfeld thinks, God bless him.
29 - Clavos
Don't forget the piranhas and crocodiles in the moat, Dave.
30 - JR
Baronius: Back to my original point, the only question in Powell's mind is "how does this make me look?". That's not the way Rumsfeld thinks, God bless him.
Don't have a strong opinion on Rumsfeld vs. Powell; if anything, I've been more critical of Powell myself.
I just think it's interesting that you seem to base your judgements so extensively on the assumption that you know their minds. Your defense of Dick Cheney on another thread also seemed based on what you perceived his private motives and intentions to be. If pressed, you would admit that you are no more privy to these men's inner thoughts than are the rest of us, wouldn't you?
31 - Baronius
JR - heh. I never noticed that. I guess it's a rhetorical flourish. I nevertheless maintain that my psychic link is all-inclusive, and that deep in your brain you know it.
There was an interview with Rumsfeld maybe a month ago, on National Review Online. Between his "Rumsfeld's Rules" from 2001 and this interview, I developed an overall impression of him. Nancy profiles Rumsfeld as stubborn; Bliffle, as egotistical. Neither seems to fit his decision to step down today.
32 - JR
Baronius: Nancy profiles Rumsfeld as stubborn; Bliffle, as egotistical.
Yeah, we all make some assumptions. The question whether we recognize to what extent.
Neither seems to fit his decision to step down today.
I don't know, I might argue that both those qualities are prerequisites to holding such a high-profile job in the first place. John Kerry seemed to lack the stubbornness, and look where that got him.
33 - Deano
Re: Comment #17
Biffle, the transformation of the military wasn't the problem - thinking you could effectively occupy and police a country with more than 24 million people (who have a long tradition of being at each other's throats) with less than 140,000 troops - THAT was the problem!
The "If's" are many and multitudinious - "if" the administration hadn't disbanded the Iraqi military and government in a blind mass de-Baathification; "if" the administration had made some real diplomatic effort to pull in its international allies, they might have had more troops/assistance available; "if" the administration had clued in early that security was a necessity to build stable political and economic institutions and more troops were required...if, if, if.....
There were plenty of people telling them what they needed to know, but they opted for denial, and Rumsfeld was front and centre with Bush.
Powell was utterly correct in one thing - he told Bush the Pottery Barn Rule applies - "you break it- you buy it".