Thursday, November 09, 2006


Wow, was Bush quick to throw Rummy under the bus. Not even a moment's hesitation. This guy has been messing up for at least four years now, and Bush finally decides to get rid of him. Doesn't he see that it's too late? Or is this some sort of peace offering to the Democrats? Either way, if that's the way Bush treats his loyal followers - well, I guess the Colin Powell episode should have shown us that it is.

Funny thing is that I saw Rummy's now infamous press conference on C-Span last week. I happened to be feeding the baby and I've found that C-Span has a very calming effect on him - it almost always puts him to sleep. I used baseball for the same effect on my first born. But Rummy was in his legendary rude, condescending and obnoxious form. It was the first time I'd seen it live and uncut for such a long period of time. Boy, did he treat the press shabbily. Anyhow, if it took this last election for Bush to realize what a jack-ass this guy was...well, as I've said before, Bush's obtuseness is remarkable.




patti said...

I don't think Bush voluntarily let Rummy go. Twice now already Rummy wanted to leave, but stay-the-course-Bush would not accept his resignation. I think after the election, the bull headed Rummy just refused to be part of this administration now that the congress was under the control of the democrats. Bush had no choice. Otherwise, he would have "stayed the course."

How do we get Bush to resign now?

DocTorDee said...

Good point, patti. Rumsfeld did not want to be subpoenaed and dragged through endless hours of Congressional hearings, so he bowed out. I think it makes him a wimp.

If his policies were so on-target, he should stay and course and take the heat, blah, blah, blah. But he wimped out---cut and run.

Yesterday, I watched an interview with Rumsfeld that was done in light of his resignation.

Here's his outgoing position: "People don't understand what's going in in Iraq, but I understand. In time, my position will be vindicated." Amazing...the man has cotton in his ears.

Is it any wonder that people say Rummy's greatest problem is that he doesn't want to hear other people's opinions? Even as he is going out the door, he's still saying that he is right and everybody else is wrong.

No wonder Colin Powell left.

And did you see the fact that the Army Times called for Rumsfeld's ouster? The article was to appear in "four independent publications that serve the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and the U.S. Air Force." That's a pretty strong no confidence vote.

This is one of the problems of civilian leadership...Rumsfeld was never a serviceman, so it's all theory to him.

Now, I'm not calling for an end to civilian leadership. That's key to our democracy; however, the civilian needs to listen to the experts on armed warfare and not assume that he knows better.


ralphplace said...

Good insight on Rummy's reasons for leaving. Can't say I blame him for cutting-and-running on the home front. Now if only they can figure out how to make such a clean getaway with the troops in Iraq...

Jim Lichtenwalter said...

Do we still have a chance of winning in Iraq? What we need to do is shut down the shite armed militia's, secure the borders, get all of the unemployed people doing something such as public works, let the Irag leaders know we will not be there forever and they need to stad up. If that involves letting them fall a couple of times well so be it. I think we may still have a chance but the clock is ticking...

Ralph said...


I think we need to define what "winning" means.

DocTorDee said...

The war was lost from the beginning. If the motive was to slow the spread of terrorism, then the decision to wage open war against an Arab state that never attacked us was a stupendously foolish move. It simply reinforced the Arab notion that the West is bound and determined to kill Arabs and take their oil.

Unfortunately, this war played right into Bin Laden's hands and reinforced our position as "Zionist Devils." In so doing, it has also spawned another generation of terrorists, which the West will now have to contend with for many more years. It really was colossally stupid to invade Iraq.

So what now? There's no hope at all--apart from a massive nuclear showdown in that part of the world.

There is only one other path to peace: The US should work unrelentingly to solve the Palestinian situation. It all begins and ends with that. If we can bring peace and prosperity to Palestine, we will alleviate the primary driving force behind terrorism.

Unfortunately, peace in the middle east will (likely) never be achieved without the elimination of Israel as we know it, so there is basically no chance this will ever happen. As long as Israel exists, the Arabs will want to drive them out. And as long as the US supports Israel (and it always will), then Americans will be targets of Arab terrorists.

So, the only solution is a nuclear war that kills lots of people and creates an abiding peace, or some other kind of peaceful, creative idea where Palestine becomes so prosperous that the Arab world forgets about what they see as "the Israeli occupation."

It's really fucking hopeless and the war just made it worse.

Ralph said...

Yes. But, for those with interest in the defense industry - Dick Chaney and his ilk, hasn't this war been a success already? To take it one step further, in a recent conversation, it was pointed out to me that defense is the largest industry in the world and that wars keep this industry healthy. You really think the U.S. couldn't have caught bin Laden by now if it really wanted to.

DocTorDee said...

The infamous military/industrial complex...promote killing for profit. Rumsfeld is quoted as saying, "There are some good targets in Iraq [better than Afghanistan]."

And Cheney, shortly after 9/11, is quoted as saying, "We have to find a way to pull Iraq into this."

So, we offer humans sacrifices (troops and innocent victims) to appease the God of War. Nothing has changed in thousands of years.


Ralph said...

Right, Doc. What remains a bit of a mystery, however, still, is why we (and I use that term loosely) had such a hard-on for Iraq. I've read some garbage about the neo-cons, but I'm not totally sold on what I've seen so far on that front...

DocTorDee said...

I thought you answered all of those's a variety of things: thirst for oil, recurring vestiges of the military/industrial complex, US fear of nuclear annihilation from the Arab world.

Or do you think it's a single answer?

Remember, the Roman Empire lives on in Washington DC, just go and look at the architecture. So maybe the US is just behaving like the Romans of old...and you'll note that, after the oil companies raked in record profits for this past year, oil prices are down once again---so there's your plunder.

So, don't be coy. Why do you think we went into Iraq?